VECT

@Nicky Hong Kong municipality is more or less democratic. But as a city they belong to China, and what Beijing says overrule whatever their own municipality representatives says. Whether or not that is actually in the current law is only a technicality. Power is all that matters. So even if a protest moves a mayor of Hong Kong who is sympathetic, if that mayor isn't doing what Beijing wants, he'll get replaced, one way or another. This protest is aimed at Beijing. So when I said dictatorship, I obviously was pointing to Mainland China. And yes, I agree with what swNerd said, I would be very surprised if Beijing gave any inch to this protest. The protest will not cause them any actual damage if they let it go on and wait for it to die out by itself. If Beijing let up however, they risk setting a very dangerous precedent to the rest of Mainland.

2. More like you have not or will not grasp what I have said. Wealth is redistributed everyday in every financial transactions. When we talk about the evil of redistribution of wealth we are talking about those redistributions enacted forcefully by a party when they have no right to do so. In this topic it boils down to whether or not the individual have claimed the ownership of that land he is renting. If he can't own the land, then the portion of rent minus expense he collects is immoral. If he can, then it isn't. 3. Then you should have communicated that fact more clearly. 4. There are only 2 challenges you offered in all your posts towards objecting landownership and in support of your community re-compensation Land value benefits from community improvement not of an individual's own making Land value benefits from natural potentials not of an individual's own making These two are the central spine of your entire argument. I have already replied my argument to both, none of which you have replied back. 5. I don't think I have. If he can claim land as part of his capital, then he is well within his right to demand a rent for the permission to others for using what is his. But you have conveniently ignored my entire post concerning why an individual is able to claim land as part of his capital back during the discussion concerning the orchard. 6. Maybe they shouldn't be. But the point is the reason you brought this up is under the assumption that it is an alternative principle on claiming unclaimed land competing with principles similar to Homestead Act, it isn't. Rand was talking about how best to transfer ownership of something already wrongfully claimed by the government to private ownership. She wasn't talking about the best principle for an individual to claim unclaimed items. 7. Why is that distinction arbitrary? Government owned land means those land government claimed exclusive usage to and no private individual may own (which by principle they shouldn't be able to). Unowned land the government is the custodian of are those unclaimed land once claimed by individuals that the government is willing/able to mobilize military & police to protect their property rights against enemies foreign and domestic. 8. Again, the only difference between your economic rent and interest is whether or not the source can be owned as a captial. If the source can be, then whatever rent is charged minus expense is interest. If the source cannot be owned as capital, then whatever's charged minus expense is this economic rent of yours. I've already argued why land can be owned as capital and made reply to both of your central arguments. You not only have not replied back to my arguments, all you have done is bringing up arguments from another Objectivist and asking me to justify what he said. 9. That's your own miscommunication. But again, I would make the same criticism I have stated of those points whether it be from you or another self-proclaimed Objectivist. Patience is definitely in short-supply at this stage. I myself am running short the moment you decide since you have nothing to reply to my counter-argument to your 2 central-points, to ask me instead how I should justify what was said by another self-proclaimed Objectivist.

Yeah but here's the thing: is protest actually going to accomplish anything? Armed rebellion -----> cuts military power Atlas Shrugging -----> cuts tax revenue Peaceful protest -----> ??? Protest works in a democratic society because government official retain their position through votes. When you have a dictatorship to begin with, what does protest by itself actually accomplish?

What I think is that this person is making the mistake of arguing from consequence rather than principle. While he is probably right about the consequences, it doesn't justify instances of wrongful property claim. But then again nor did I attempt to justify any wrongful property claim on the ground of positive future consequences. I'm going to guess this reply of his pertains to your example of past land conquest during wars. Forcefully claiming land through war and conquest is wrong, but possible present day remedy to some long past conquest is not anywhere near your version of some "re-compensation" of current average landowners back to the community. I've already talked about this in another post. And in determining retail sales, and in local investment, and in resident satisfaction, and in tourism revenue. The list goes on, and on, and on. The principle you are arguing here is that by indirectly benefiting from advantages, without consent or choice, an individual still owes compensation to the source of that advantage. Compensation is an item reserved when an individual have done injury to another or as a payment in a voluntary trade. Benefiting from local improvement such as trans-links in your examples is neither an injury nor a voluntary trade. Now if a trans-link construction company asks nearby home-owners for a fee as payment for the in-direct advantages a trans-link system would bring to their dwellings (and if denied the company would not build a trans-link), and the home-owners agreed, THEN they would owe compensation to the trans-link company for the indirect benefit of a terminal. Again, this principle of yours is something I've replied numerous times already. Everytime I reply you evade this very topic to try and discuss the topic of coercion instead, which is something else entirely. You mean YOUR two conditions. The Objectivism conditions used to determine whether someone can claim a perpetual ownership title over some patch of unclaimed land are: -Be first -Conducted a reasonable amount of productive effort on that patch of land to transform it into a capital No where did Objectivism state that the improvement an individual build must be valued financially higher than the naturally occurring land value to be able to lay a claim. And if one day the land becomes more valuable than his improvement he would lose his claim. Nor did Objectivism state that the owner must stay actively productive to retain claim on that land. If he builds a building on it and never visits, it doesn't mean another should get the right to claim that land after and remove his building. Now SHOULD your conditions be judged more reasonable when compared to the current Objectivism conditions? I don't think so. On the topic of your economic rent: Collecting interest from a rented capital is collecting income from active labourers without doing any active productivity yourself. Fundamentally, the question of economic rent goes back to the right to claim land. If a piece of land is rightfully claimed, then all is capital and all rent minus expenses are interest, and there is no economic rent. If a piece of land isn't rightfully claimed, then an individual shouldn't be able to charge rent, economic rent or not. How and why land can be claimed as capital and personal property I've already talked about. That's Rand talking about something that's ALREADY claimed by government and is currently in use, the airways. She's talking about the best practical method of transferring from public ownership to private ownership things that's currently in use. This is another topic entirely. Principles similar to the Homestead Act are concerned with land that is UNCLAIMED and how can an individual claim such land. ​Objectivism does not regard unclaimed land to be publicly owned. There is no mixture of views here.

But he is not selling apples. That per-piece fee is a rent for those who wants to collect apples from his orchard. Would it be better if I make the example and say he charges the rent by the hour instead then? As for your new border-guard example, you are chanting the same tone I've answered numerous times already. Instead of attempting to debate the fundamental issue here you are evading it. Your very topic is named "Owning Land?" I've answered that Objectivism's answer is "Yes" and have described the condition needed to properly claim previously unclaimed land and take their ownership. Now instead of trying to argue why Objectivism's condition for claiming land isn't proper, you are repeatingly giving examples of individuals that never claimed lands by Objectivism standard in the first place and asking me if I concur with their claim of land ownership. If that's not a glaring example of evasion and straw-man, I don't know what is.

From what I've read, it's not so much as a protest for more democracy. The whole deal started when Beijing released a white paper stating that Hong Kong will get their first democratic election in 2017 as promised, but all candidate able to participate must be approved by Beijing first. (This is actually fundementally the exact system Mainland China have. There is actually democractic elections in mainland china, but since all candidate are "approved" by the current power-to-be, no one bothers to vote) http://media2.coconuts.co/styles/article_header/s3/field/image/rotten_apples_image-jpg.jpg The bigger fear of many there I think is that this is only the first step of a bigger scheme. The next thing on the chopping block are the economic freedoms. Still, the Hong Kongers are something else. I don't think I've ever heard of kids that went to these kind protests anywhere else in the world still trying to keep up with their school by doing homework on the scene: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-29423147 And then you got pictures like this: https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10625074_716454955098526_285854267353971081_n.jpg?oh=9901b38a113b921bf4cdad600436cacb&oe=54C614A8&__gda__=1420993173_2060e39351f09475a5adfaf9db49aac4 Wonder how this whole thing is going to pan out.

Anyone keeping up with the news of the unprecedented mass protest that's going on in Hong Kong? What do you guys think is going to happen? CCP backs down Protest dies down eventually with nothing major accomplished Repeat of Tianman Square of '89

I am assuming the orchard covers the entire forest. But even if it doesn't, by your own logic the example would still stand. Even if an individual could still collect free wild-apples from the portion of the forest still unclaimed, your logic would still argue that the rent the orchard owner is charging should be less $0.3, because that $0.3 is contributed by a natural potential he benefited not of his own making. And your use of "coercive" is interesting. Is it coercive to be able to force a thief from stealing your furniture? Is it coercive to be able to force a debater to pay back an overdue loan? The real key question here is, how should rights be established, by reason. Rights sets the boundary between individuals that allow them to deal with each other objectively. The condemnation of coercion lies with the one who initiates a violation of right against another. Any reasonable actions of force taken by other parties afterwards to correct the wrong and restore what is right is justified. Objectivism doesn't condemn the use of force/coercion, but the initiation of force/coercion. Also, while you keep pronouncing that paying for improvements is completely legitimate, what you fail to understand is that ALL improvements are an amalgamation of human work and natural potentials. Take your apple basket for example. If free wood-sticks is laying around in the forest for anyone to pick. And if those naturally occuring wood-sticks are valued at $0.1 per piece. If I pick up free wood-sticks laying around the forest and making them into basket for rent, your logic would argue that whatever I charge for rent for the baskets should be minus $0.1, because that $0.1 would be economic rent of me asking others to pay for permission to use naturally occurring woodsticks. This logic would then go on, and on, and on.

Just as a certain degree of disuse needed to be achieved in order to lose the ownership of a claimed land, so is there needed a certain degree of productive use in order to claim a piece of unclaimed land. If for example, the law of the village elders allows an individual to claim that apple-forest merely by building a fence around it, productivity requirement of that shallow a degree would hardly be appropriate. An individual by reason cannot claim a piece of unclaimed land by merely fencing it off with no additional productive plans as in your example. But I get the spirit of your example and where you are coming from. So I will make a more appropriate example variation below: Let's say that a landlord been first to use that apple-forest and claimed it with extensive productive actions (tending trees, killing off sick ones, planting new ones, watering/fertilization, grafting..etc.). He harvests the apples, but also allows others to collect apples from orchard, provided a fee of $1 per apple is paid. As a free-lance apple-collector, you are going to argue that while it's reasonable for the current orchard owner to charge a fee based on his operation cost and interest of his orchard, his orchard also benefits from the original apple growth when the forest was virgin, a growth that was not of his making. Since that growth is not of his making and his orchard currently is benefiting from it, you argue a portion of his fee (economic rent) then must be attributed to this natural growth, a portion he have no right to collect and must re-compensate you for it. Also, had he not built his orchard, you (and anyone else) would have been able to collect apples from the original wild apple-forest for free. You estimate the value of a wild-apple to be approximately $0.3. This value of $0.3 you would consider as the size of the portion of the economic rent in the current $1 fee the landlord is charging per apple. I think you'll agree I'm pretty faithful to your intention with this variation. However, there is a critical flaw in your reasoning: Just as the natural apple growth wasn't of his making, it wasn't of YOUR making either. To ask for re-compensation to you because the landlord's orchard benefited from natural apple growth not of the landlord's making presupposes that the natural apple growth is of your making, and you had a claim on the wild-apples of the virgin forest. This of course is not true. All works of men can and do benefit from natural potentials not of his own making to one degree or another. An individual cannot claim a source of natural potential without adding a respectable amount his own work into it (e.g. merely fencing off a wild apple-forest). But when he does incorporate a respectable amount of his own work with a source of natural potential, he is able to claim the product as his capital (e.g. the orchard) He owes no other individual compensation for the natural potentials his work benefited from (e.g. wild apple growth) because no other individuals caused these natural potentials.

The current variation of your example is comparable with my past example of an individual initially claiming an unclaimed piece of land by constructing a building but then demolishing it afterwards and renting out only an empty lot. And I've said before, there is merit in stating that in this situation, the land might be returned to unclaimed status. The appropriateness of the degree and the length of disuse needed for a landownership to be lost is the province of the discipline of law. Philosophy merely gives the answer that a certain degree of disuse for a certain duration should constitute loss of landownership. And that is the answer Objectivism gives last time I checked. As for re-compensation concerning past conquest, that is an enormous topic all by itself. But in general, re-compensation is something done on an individual-to-individual bases. So your saying that the land where you live stem from past conquest, did your direct family own the land you presently occupy, in the past, before your current landlord's army drove them out?

The strong-man in your tale is immoral of course. But there is a critical flaw in your tale that makes it incompatible to be used as an analogue to be compared to the example of your rent. The flaw is this: The strong-man in your example did not claim the apple-forest as his property in the proper way by Objectivism standard, while your average modern landowner did. -The strong-man in your example did not operate in the apple-forest FIRST (as compared to you) and nor did he build any sort of productive facility to claim it (e.g. an orchard). -The strong-man also did not purchase the apple-forest from someone who did properly claim it previously. -Therefore the strong-man in your example did not have a right to bar you entry to the apple-forest and collect from you a rent Your average landowners today did either purchase land from someone who previously properly claimed them or have properly claimed unclaimed land themselves. As for your own rent situation, were you already living on the piece of land you presently occupy before your current landowner strong-armed you out and claimed that piece of land his own property?

Wait a minute, you keep talking about "force" and "coercion" in regard to rent. I always assumed in the beginning that you were talking about a scenario where all the land on this earth becomes claimed and an individual would physically have to rent from already claimed land. But you are not talking about that. I'm going to assume then the reason as to why you are calling rent forced is because you are drawing a parallel between these two scenarios: -Landowner: If you want to stay on my property, pay rent or leave my land -Government: If you want to stay in this country, pay tax or leave the country There is a critical difference between these two scenarios. The landowner here would have claimed his land under Objectivism standard, through an initial act of production using the land in question (or brought from previous owner, if we are talking about already claimed lands). The government (a group of individuals) on the other hand, did not claim the land of a country under Objectivism standard. That's the difference. I see. I re-read your post concerning your own rent in London. You are arguing that it makes sense to pay those portions of a rent that consists of Utility and Interest, but not the portion that is economic rent (permission to live in that location). Let me ask you this, how do you draw the line between Interest and your economic rent? (Both in terms of principle and practically in terms of $ figure) It skipped my mind; I assumed before re-reading that your economic rent is in fact, interest (or a portion of interest), but after re-reading now it's clear that you are differentiating the two. Now I am assuming then you agree that interest payment on capitals is not some unearned one-sided collection, that there is a trade going on there. So then, how do you differentiate between interest (earned from the building) and your economic rent (that supposed to come from the land)? Because as far as I can see, the rise and fall of rent as a result of improvement around a landowner's property is a rise and fall of interest.

I get what you are saying here. The traditional method of claiming ownership of land historically is through might. A mafia could claim a block of city through might and demand a rent (protection fee) for those that operate in "their" territory. An army can claim a region and demand a tax for those that now live on "their" land. A group of bandits will claim a mountain pass and demand a passage fee for those that go through..etc. Objectivism advocate the view that the act to claim ownership of land is not through might, but through productive actions. If an individual construct a building on a piece of unclaimed land, the land the building sits on and a reasonable 3D area around it needed for it's operations, should be his to do as he will. Now if he demolishes his building and leaves that piece of land an empty lot specifically for the purpose of renting, since there is no longer any productive operation of his taking place on that land, should that land still stays in his ownership or should it be returned to unclaimed status, this is an interesting question and something debatable further. (Though I'm sure practically different level of productivity required to keep a land won't really make a fundamental difference. Any individual who is interested purely in the ownership of a piece of land would just do the minimum needed on that land to keep it. Once it's rented/sold to another, the new tenant can then replace the "decoy" operation of the owner.) ====Concerning Main Topic=== But now I see you are actually arguing for something further. You are arguing that even if this individual did not demolish his building to leave that piece of land an empty lot, the fact that his operation of him renting his building benefits from an unearned portion coming from land/location (economic rent) entails that he should compensate the source of this economic rent. And you are arguing that the source of that economic rent are the other individuals around his property that increased the value of his land. If this individual and his building is in the middle of London, and suddenly the whole of London disappears, him and the portion of economic rent he would be able to collect in his rent would drop astronomically. Therefore, it then can be seen that the source of his current portion of his rent that is the economic rent is sourced in the community around him. And therefore he should compensate the community around him from a portion of the economic rent that he currently collects, since it's unearned by him. I think I'm pretty much on the mark here, but do correct me. So now my counter question: Again, suppose this individual and his building is in the middle of nowhere and instead of renting he is running a retail business selling stuffs. Needless to say his monthly sales is horrible. However, imagine by magic this individual and his retail building gets teleported into the middle of London. Now due to the community and the improvement around him, his monthly sales suddenly increased astronomically! Now would you or would you not say that the INCREASE in the sales of this individual's business is caused, in this case, purely by the community and improvement of London around him, something not of his own making. And by the same logic, would you not say this individual owns compensation to the community around him out of the portion of the INCREASE in his sales that he benefited?

There are only two fundamental items in the universe: Matter and Space. Land is basically Space (a 2D approximation of 3D area). So essentially you have no problem with Objectivism's current view in terms of property right regarding physical matters. But when it comes to space (land), you are arguing things are a bit different. As for your train link example, are you now arguing that it's wrong for the farmer/landowner to collect the raise of rent because it's the result of an improvement not of his own making? Because not just rent, any kind of liquidity inflow for a business, from sales to investment, can happen as a result of the improvements in the area done by another not of a person's own making. By this logic are you going to argue profiting on those increases by an individual is immoral as well? Anyhow, the way I see it at the moment, there are two aspects to the argument you are making in this thread: 1. Immoral economic rent & Remedy -Immoral status ---- in debate -Remedy ---- Some sort of Taxation (while not the Georgian version you stated, but I am assuming you are for some kind of tax as remedy, correct me if I am wrong) 2. Immoral space(land) hoarding & Remedy -Immoral status ---- in debate -Remedy ---- unused space return to unclaimed status There is some merit to the 2nd aspect of your argument. But, the degree of productive action needed to qualify a land claim, the appropriateness of the size of land delegated, and the qualification for the space to return to unclaimed status, are generally province of law-making instead of philosophy. In respect to this, as far as I know, philosophy really only deals with the questions: What kind of action should qualifying for land claim? (Might vs Productive Usage), Should an individual be able to claim a piece of land to use to sustain his life? Should land return to unclaimed status after disuse? The last question, last time I checked Objectivism's answer was "Yes" (correct me if I'm wrong here people). Still, the speed and easiness of a claimed land becoming unclaimed in your example (while a part of the underground space is delegated to a building owner initially, if he's not using it, then it immediately becomes unclaimed and you can build pipes through them), that's debatable. Now, the 1st aspect of your argument, concerning economic rent as been immoral and the remedy is some sort of tax back to the community (Georgian or not), that just opens a whole new can of worm. I might have more to say about it after you answer my counter-question concerning your train link example.

Both can. Less unclaimed land means more demand on already claimed land. That scarcity translates to higher valuation for existing claimed land due to exclusivity. Valuation can also be increased due to improvements, as is your case of train link, and increase demand that way. This is economic basics. The reason I didn't mention this second fundamental reason for increase in demand is because it didn't pertain to the topic that was in discussion: When all the land (in a relevant area) is claimed, that's when people gets forced to rent from existing claimed land; that's why I only brought up the first reason. If there were unclaimed land people would just go claim them instead of be physically forced to rent. But now I see there was actually no reason for me to bring up the source of economic rent. Your main argument is something else entirely. On the main topic, given what you just said, so then I was pretty close to the mark with my last post: Your main argument is that an individual can only claim the right to use space/land, but not total ownership of it. If they are not going to use (or even not already using) the space/land in question, then they can't horde onto it, prevent others from using it, and/or extract an unearned rent from others for using it. If they are not using it anymore, that part of space/land gets returned to unclaimed status, and another can use/claim it. From what I've seen, there is some confusion concerning exactly what you are arguing. Right now I'm just trying make sure I understand correctly; the above is your central argument is it not?

I think what Jon here is ultimately trying to argue is that an individual can only claim the right to use land/aluminium for productive purposes. But since they can't actually claim the right to own the items, only the right to use them for productive purposes, if they are not using the land/aluminium they currently hold to produce things, then they can't just hold on to it and rent it out collecting an unearned economic rent, and must gave the land/aluminium up. Am I getting it right Jon?

By scarcity I mean scarcity of unclaimed land. Not the amount of land physically. And economic rent is something that arises from scarcity/exclusivity. Your argument is as I understand that this rent is unearned and immoral. Which leads to another problem you have with this latest post. You are having trouble with the process by how an individual can claim a land. How an individual claim the right to a chunk of metal over his fellow peers, that you can see, because of the act of mining (since he put his effort into mining that chunk of metal out of the earth and his fellow men didn't, therefore he have the right to that metal over his fellow men) (also I wouldn't call that a "wage", wage is an item traded between two individuals over items they both claimed, this (mining) on the other hand is an act of claiming unclaimed item) Similar situation for claiming land. There is a piece of unclaimed land (great view): -Individual_1 arrives to this land -Individual_1 likes the view on this land and buildings a large building -Individual_1 claims the land the building stands on You are going to argue: The building belongs to him, but not the land! The building came into existence because of Individual_1's labour, but the land has always been there! Right to Property is a claim to a property over your peers, over other individuals; it's not some metaphysical link between you and your property. Just as claiming a chunk of metal is first-come-first-serve (whoever mined that unclaimed chunk out of this earth, or whoever flagged the piece underground), same goes with land. If you are going to argue that the building can belong to Individual_1 but not the space (land) that the building occupies, how would that work? Building is a physical object that have to occupy space. If he cannot claim the land that the building occupies, does that mean another can? And what would happen to his building if another claims that land? What if the new landowner wants to remove the building? Moreover, by what rationale should another individual be able to claim the land that Individual_1's building sits on? The land was unclaimed before; the act of I1 constructing a building on top of it should by all reason grant him claim over that land above his peers. If you say it does not, then what does? And by what merit should an after-come individual be able to claim that piece of land after I1 have already constructed a building on top of it?

A chunk of metal formed into a machine is capital, and can be claimed as private property (due to production), and can be and rented out to another for a fee. A piece of land formed into apartment building is capital, and can be claimed as private property (due to production), and can be rented out to another for a fee. The metals are limited on this earth, and so are the lands. There can be said to be an "economic rent" for both cases. The only difference at the present moment is in the size of this "economic rent" due to the difference in scarcity between metal and land. This idea of yours that suggest that land (an area of the surface of earth and a limited space above that surface) is inherently different from other natural resources seems to be based on scarcity rather than principle. But the truth of the matter is, all resources on this earth is limited. Right now you are arguing that when all the land is claimed, all the land owners that rent out their land is extracting an unearned "economic rent" as part of their rent fee due to the scarcity of land. In the future when all the metals on this Earth is mined out, would not your logic also suggest that any metal owners that rent their metals out is extracting an unearned "economic rent" due to the now scarcity of metal? This logic then goes on and on: any natural resource of any kind that gets scarce would apply. In terms of principle, there is no difference between land and all other resources; your argument so far I can see is based purely on level of scarcity. Practically, the fact of the matter is, land and resources on Earth might be limited, but they are infinite in the universe.

Since kids can't really reason that well for themselves yet (underdeveloped logics, not enough knowledge/experience) and lacking confidence, they tend to judge the validity of answers based purely on the perceived authority of the person giving those answers. "X is right" "Because ___ said so" The "___" starts with parents. After growing up, those that never learned to reason for themselves and outgrown this mode of thinking eventually uses God as the ultimate authority figure to fill in the "___". I think that's probably why religion have held monopoly in the realm of ethics throughout human history. I don't want to be just another name in "___". After much thought, doing nothing seems somewhat irresponsible, too. The best thing I think I can do now is to just ask questions instead of giving any answers. I'll start by asking her "Why should people HAVE to gave away their stuffs to poorer people" and poke holes at whatever answers she gave with further critical questions. If she changes her mind later and prefers Capitalism instead, I will continue do the same ("Why shouldn't people have to gave away their stuffs to help the less fortunate"). The authority for any answers to be claimed right is if they can pass through the crucible of fire that is critical reasoning unscathed. I think teaching that lesson is far more important than anything else.

So I was enjoying a collection of funny moments from Prime Minister's Question on Youtube the other day, and my grade-6 kid sister comes in, saw me, and wants me to explain exactly what I was watching. The waterfall of questions eventually narrows down to "What's the point/purpose of government?" and "Why are those people on the two side of the aisle arguing?" To simplify the matter, I just told her that the reason those people on the two side of the aisle are arguing and throwing witty insults at each other is because one side believes that things you made/traded/gifted with are yours to keep, and that the point of a government is there to protect you against people who would steal/destroy your stuffs or hurt your person. She likes this idea. The other side I told her, believes that the purpose of a government is to take stuffs from those who are richer and use them to help those who are poorer. I made sure to tell her that this is not donation; you don't get a choice whether or not you gave away your stuffs. She paused a moment at this last bit, but decided she likes this idea even better. Amused, I further asked her what she thinks of a world where everyone is equal in stuffs. That if someone have more, they would need to share theirs with the rest of the people. She didn't like that idea at all. However, she is okay with, and think others should be too, to have to gave away some of what they have, to help those who are poorer. Now, I am tempted to spoon-feed her the answer I believe in, but I am afraid given her current intellect/knowledge she won't fully grasp the reasons and would just simply believe what I tell her is right because of her faith in me as her cool big brother, and I really don't want that to be her reason. Of course, if anyone here can come up with a brilliant and concise analogy to explain the actual reasons to a kid, I'll entertain bringing up this topic with her again.

I have procrastinated reading this very thread and making a reply, even though I'm interested in participating in the discussion. And interestingly enough I've not procrastinated in reading and making replies to other threads I participated in. (Hell, sometimes I procrastinate real-life duties by participating in threads on here). Now I know there are a lot of tricks to combat procrastination; I have a few myself that I use. But what I don't understand for sure and is interested in knowing is where this urge is coming from. After some thoughts I've noticed a lot of times when I procrastinate it's on things that I find stressful; these things can be things I'm interested in, they can also be things I find boring. So interest doesn't really seem to be playing that big of a factor. Stress is the main culprit here. And it's not just any stress; I think it's specifically stress from the unknown, from things that will require change to routines. (Rather than stress from overburden). Of course, to combat this, by willing yourself to do what needs to be done and making the stressful activity a habit, it (generally) makes an activity easier overtime and allow yourself to be less susceptible to procrastinating from either avoiding perceived stress and/or getting distracted by immediate attractions. Some people help themselves to form habit in doing stress tasks by using the pleasure/pain mechanism (rewarding yourself with snacks after completion of the stressful task). Others find ways to remove distractions ahead of time to make procrastination harder. Those that have iron wills (physical activities and good nutrition will help in this respect) can just strong-arm their way though with pure determination. However, the ultimate source of procrastination, this tendency to avoid stress and/or be distracted by immediate attractions, the more I think about it the more I believe it is something that comes from birth by default rather than something learned in our lifetime.

Is the urge to procrastinate and/or seeking instant gratification born from: -Birth? -Irrational convictions accepted during our own lifetime? The way I see it, if it's the former, then only way to combat the urge to procrastinate and/or the urge to seek instant gratification is to either: -Remove the urge overtime by conditioning yourself (like you would a pet dog) using pleasure & pain -Avoid the urge by making plans ahead of time to either remove possible temptations/distractions and/or add artificial blockades that prevents yourself from succumbing to them. -Fight it with will when the urge arises If it's the latter, then you can just remove the urge altogether by uncovering which irrational convictions you have that is leading you to procrastinate and/or seeking instant gratification and correct them. Any thoughts?

I see what you are saying. Some sort of actual change would have to happen (change in regulation..etc.) to invalidate "Bachelors are men who have no wife". While it's reasonable to imagine such a change in man-made regulation (as opposed to ice sinking in water), imagining by itself still isn't enough to invalidate "Bachelors are men who have no wife", actual regulation change have to take place. And if actual change happens, the invalidation of that definition can then be appropriately said to have happened on contextual ground. Point taken. Concept's main function is to achieve unit perspective on a set of existent so that more efficient and effective cognitive activities can be achieved. Definitions are what helps to clearly keep the boundary between concepts. It is incredibly useful to have the concept. I was thinking along the line that if the vast majority of people didn't really care about the quality of been unmarried, they would just call such a man "unmarried man" instead of bothering to make up a whole new term. As for why people would care, I see what you mean about people caring/valuing the quality of been unmarried objectively. When I said people valued the quality of been unmarried subjectively, I completely forgot about that whole "Subjective vs Objective vs Intrinsic" thing. People don't value been "unmarried" subjectively just because. They value been "unmarried" at the very least due to the fact that such man is available for marriage. Such valuation based on the availability for marriage or any other facet of reality (partying/pads..etc.) would place the concern on Objective ground instead of Subjective. Given that case, it does make sense then that Rule of Fundementality also applies to the definition of "Bachelor". Even if in a world where the only major difference between bachelors and married men is that bachelors are available for marriage (no difference in partying/pads..etc.), that single characteristic, "available for marriage", is dependent/linked back to the essential characteristic of been "unmarried". Since it's so obvious and simple the application of RoF in the case of "bachelor" when compared to the example of using RoF to identify the essential characteristic of human being in that lexicon excerpt, I guess I missed it. But I can see now how the same principle applies.

Thanks for the links Critical, I've read that article by Peikoff more than a month back when I made another thread asking for some pointers concerning the Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy. I understand that the modern AS Dichotomy and its Platonic ancestor regards all characteristics not essential as been contingent. And I agree with what Peikoff said, that only man-made characteristics are contingent. All other non-artificial metaphysical characteristics even if not essential is not somehow contingent; things are what they are. The characteristic "married" is artificial. The qualifications needed to engage in marriage and whether or not people will marry are all contingent on exercises of free-will. I understand your concern in my using the word "contingent" because of it's close connotations to the AS Dichotomy. But, I don't know if "contextual" is suitable in this specific marriage example either. Let's say that marriage is only allowed between a man and a woman. Now for whatever reason this regulation changed. However, it just so happens for whatever reason that no man is ever gay and no gay marriage will occur. Can the definition "Bachelors are men who have no wife" be invalidated contingent merely upon the volitional change of the artificial qualification of marriage? Or do actual cases of gay marriage have to happen and be observed to invalidate this definition contextually? As for essential characteristics, I understand the different standards from that article: Platonic --------------------------- supernatural essence, people know what characteristic is essential by intuition Modern AS Dichotomy -------- majority ruled subjective opinion, people know it from the most popular norm, trend, and/or dictionary Objectivism ----------------------- the characteristic which all (or most) other characteristics of the existent depend on, people know it from reasoning For the Objectivism standard on essential characteristics from that page of lexicon you linked, I agree. However, after some thought, I have to point out that the Rule of Fundamentality (RoF) only apply to those concept constructed for the purpose of attempting to provide the clearest explicit contrast between existent (such as the example used in that excerpt, human beings vs other animals). This rule singles out the most sharply contrasting characteristics(s) to achieve this. But, not all concepts are created for the purpose of providing better contrast between existent so that more efficient and effective cognitive differentiation can be attained. Some concepts are constructed for the purpose of artificial classification based on certain characteristic people deem to be important due to subjective personal values. "Bachelor" is an example of such a concept. Because people regard unmarried as an characteristic of personal interest, they created this concept to classify man who are unmarried. The essential characteristic of been unmarried here is essential/critical not because of the Rule of Fundamentality; they are essential because of intent. As for "Bachelors are men", I did say it was a BAD tautological definition . But at least it reaffirms that bachelors are male. It's the lesser of two evils compared to the contridactory definition; if a person asks "What is a Bachelor?" and you answer "Bachelor is a man", that person can easily go "A man who is...?" Now if you flat out tell that person "Bachelor is a man who is married", chances are that person won't discover the truth until he makes a fool of himself somewhere else later.

Hmmm, after some thoughts, here is my view: Definitions can be tautological, contingent, or contradictory (as mentioned by aleph_1). The purpose of definition is to cite explicitly the boundary for a concept so people can determine which existent qualifies and which don't. I would argue all good definitions are always tautological (but not all tautological definitions are good). Contingent definitions are only good temporarily. And definitions that are contradictory are just crap, not useful at all. As an example, for the concept "Bachelor": "Bachelors are unmarried men" would be a good tautological definition. "Bachelors are men" would be a bad tautological definition. "Bachelors are men who have no wife" would be a contingent definition. "Bachelors are married" would be a contradictory definition. The tautological definitions are good for all time. The good tautological definitions state all the critical characteristics of a concept. The bad tautological definitions only state some critical characteristics of a concept. Concepts like "Bachelor" are born from characteristics that is either observed or imagined and deemed important enough to warrant the establishment of a concept. Since these critical characteristics is what gave birth to the concept in the first place, when a definition explicitly refers directly back to these characteristics, that definition is thought to be tautological and is useful in reaffirming the reason why people bothered to establish the concept in the first place. And of course, any definitions that state characteristics which contradict those critical characteristics that gave birth to the concept is just plainly bad. These contradictory definitions if accepted negate the purpose of the concept completely making it useless. Contingent definitions are only good temporarily. These definitions state characteristics that existent of the concept just so happens to have, but are not critical. In the case of "Bachelor", the contingent definition I stated is only good so long as marriages only can happen between a man and a woman. When gay couple can marry, that contingent definition falls apart.