Predation: Virtue Or Vice?

[DPW]

Peikoff quoting Rand, Voice of Reason

What does "faking reality" mean (e.g. how is it differentiated from writing novels?)

Faking reality means acting as if the facts were other than you know they are. Writing novels doesn't involve faking -- it involves imagining. The rest I've already covered in sufficient detail.

[tnunamak]

Faking reality means acting as if the facts were other than you know they are.  Writing novels doesn't involve faking -- it involves imagining.  The rest I've already covered in sufficient detail.

So does this mean that lying is ALWAYS wrong?

Why is faking reality, when you know you are faking it within the bounds of actual reality, and that you are only faking it to others, such a bad thing? For example, if I am 6 feet tall, and I tell myself that I am 5 feet tall, I am going against reality within my own mind. I could see how that is bad. But if I tell other people that I am 5 feet tall, can't I still know MYSELF that I am actually 6 feet tall, and thus be acting according to reality? I think if I could get a good explanation of this I would understand the idea a lot better.

[DPW]

So does this mean that lying is ALWAYS wrong?

No. It's wrong only insofar as it's dishonest. Lying to a murderer, to take the classic example, is not dishonest -- it's perfectly moral.

Why is faking reality, when you know you are faking it within the bounds of actual reality, and that you are only faking it to others, such a bad thing? For example, if I am 6 feet tall, and I tell myself that I am 5 feet tall, I am going against reality within my own mind. I could see how that is bad. But if I tell other people that I am 5 feet tall, can't I still know MYSELF that I am actually 6 feet tall, and thus be acting according to reality? I think if I could get a good explanation of this I would understand the idea a lot better.

Other people are a part of reality. The question you need to ask is: Why are you lying to them? What value are you trying to gain? Is it their esteem, which they would not give to you if they knew you were really six feet tall? If so, then you are faking reality. They don't esteem you, the six foot man.

Or, to make the example more realistic, take the guy who tells his buddies he slept with a girl when really she rebuffed him. Now, he knows in his mind that he didn't sleep with her (although even that's arguable -- most liars lose any clear distinction between what's real and what's not), and he knows that he doesn't deserve the "esteem" his friends are giving him. It's not real. His friends aren't showing him esteem, they are expressing their admiration for a guy who doesn't exist. But he's pretending he is that guy. In "faking reality to others" by saying he slept with the girl, he is faking reality in his own mind, by telling himself he deserves the admiration he's receiving from his friends.

And that's the more general point. When you fake reality to others, you end up faking reality in your own mind.

[tnunamak]

What makes lying honest, even if you are using deception?

Your example makes a lot of sense, thanks for the clarification. For further clarification, lets say that the guy saying he slept with the girl is actually looking not for esteem from his friends, but for money that he bet with some aquaintances he doesn't care for. Instead of thinking he deserved the money, he knows that he didn't deserve the money, but he still has it, and he can still use it. Even if he has faked reality in some way, he has still gained a value, which is tangible and real (at least in comparison to unearned esteem from ones friends). What makes this wrong? Maybe this is the same exact question, but this is a difficult concept for me to grasp so I'm sorry if I'm being repetive. Thanks for the help.

Edited September 15, 2005 by tnunamak

[Felix]

What makes lying honest, even if you are using deception?

Your example makes a lot of sense, thanks for the clarification. For further clarification, lets say that the guy saying he slept with the girl is actually looking not for esteem from his friends, but for money that he bet with some aquaintances he doesn't care for. Instead of thinking he deserved the money, he knows that he didn't deserve the money, but he still has it, and he can still use it. Even if he has faked reality in some way, he has still gained a value, which is tangible and real (at least in comparison to unearned esteem from ones friends). What makes this wrong? Maybe this is the same exact question, but this is a difficult concept for me to grasp so I'm sorry if I'm being repetive. Thanks for the help.

Have you read the entire thread?

If not, do so.

Winning money by lying can be substituted with robbing a bank without being caught, at least to make this principle clear to you.

In both cases you have money you can spend but you didn't earn.

[DPW]

What makes lying honest, even if you are using deception?

Rather than answer you at length, which I unfortunately don't have time to do, let me give you a lead to the answer. Recall that when we discussed lying about your height or about sleeping with the girl, what aspect of it constituted faking reality. In both cases, we assumed the liar was clear on the truth in his own mind. The faking involved why he was lying -- it involved the value he was trying to achieve. Now ask yourself: how is that essentially different from lying to protect yourself from force? Is such a person really faking reality?

Your example makes a lot of sense, thanks for the clarification. For further clarification, lets say that the guy saying he slept with the girl is actually looking not for esteem from his friends, but for money that he bet with some aquaintances he doesn't care for. Instead of thinking he deserved the money, he knows that he didn't deserve the money, but he still has it, and he can still use it. Even if he has faked reality in some way, he has still gained a value, which is tangible and real (at least in comparison to unearned esteem from ones friends). What makes this wrong? Maybe this is the same exact question, but this is a difficult concept for me to grasp so I'm sorry if I'm being repetive. Thanks for the help.

Don't worry. You're asking good questions and I'm happy to answer them. I think if you can get clear on this one aspect of Objectivism -- on the nature of principles, how they are formed, how to apply them, in what way they are contextual, etc. -- you will reach a new plateau in your grasp of the philosophy. It was an important step in my development, anyway.

That said, I want to challenge your central claim here -- that "he still gained a value." Did he? Is money intrinsically valuable?

Well, recall that in our other example, the guy who lied about sleeping with the girl really did gain the esteem of his friends. Why wasn't that esteem really a value? Because he didn't earn it. But, you might say, money spends just as well regardless of how you get it. That's a valid question, and I think there are two points here, one philosophical, one psychological.

Philosophically, the fact that money enables you to purchase goods doesn't by itself prove anything. Remember, you can't look at something in isolation and determine that it is a net benefit to your life. In order to establish that something is a net benefit, you have to view it in the context of all your other values, goals, and needs...across the whole of your lifespan. How do we know, then, that money gained by dishonestly isn't to your interest? Because it was gained dishonestly. Because we know that dishonesty isn't to your interest. It can't be, because unreality cannot be to your interest -- because you can't remain in reality by means of unreality.

The point here is that you can't argue that something is a value merely because it achieves some out-of-context end that you happen to feel benefits you. To prove that something benefits you, you have to prove that it follows from life-affirming principles. That's the only way to account for the role a given object plays in the full context of your life.

Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud..." (FNI 129)

But there is another point that I'd like to make, and it's this: observe that the men who seek unearned esteem from others are the same people who pursue money as an end in itself. The same motive underlies those who want esteem without its cause and money without its cause. What motive? Ayn Rand tells us:

The corollary of the causeless in matter is the unearned in spirit.  Whenever you rebel against causality, your motive is the fraudulent desire, not to escape it, but worse: to reverse it.  You want unearned love, as if love, the effect, could give you personal value, the cause -- you want unearned admiration, as if admiration, the effect, could give you virtue, the cause -- you want unearned wealth, as if wealth, the effect, could give you ability, the cause...  (FNI 152)

I hope that clarifies things.

Don Watkins

[mrocktor]

I'm still stuck on the circularity of property rights versus honesty.

Assume, for the sake of the argument, that our rational being has the principle that you have the right to any property you are capable of obtaining and keeping. This is oposed to the Objectivist principle that any property that is fruit of your own efforts is automatically yours irrespective of your ability to "defend" it.

Thus, when this being steals he is in no way "going against reality" as he knows full well that he stole the item. Let us further assume that he is completely truthful about it:

"Nice car Joe, where did you buy it?"

"I stole it from Mike, he left it unlocked with the keys inside"

"Then its not your car, Joe"

"It is now"

"I guess I'll just steal it from you then"

"Good luck trying"

Sure, its against the law and he would be in trouble but we cannot lean on the current laws and behavior that is considered acceptable when trying to define principles.

The point is, how is this set of beleifs inconsistent with reality (not that I subscribe to them)? It is obvious that a society of such minded individuals would be less productive than a society of Objectivists, but this is not a valid argument as the individual would be deciding his own principles based on expectations of the same behavior in others.

Of course this complicates the issue of initiation of force: does Joe have the right to use force to protect his ownership of the car? Does Mike have the right to use force to try to take the car back?

Thoughts?

mrocktor

[DPW]

Assume, for the sake of the argument, that our rational being has the principle that you have the right to any property you are capable of obtaining and keeping. This is oposed to the Objectivist principle that any property that is fruit of your own efforts is automatically yours irrespective of your ability to "defend" it.

What do you mean "has the principle"? How would he justify that principle? What rational man could conclude that the root of property isn't thought but "might makes right"?

[tnunamak]

DWP, I can follow the thought process of rationalizing morality in this way pretty well, it will just take some time before I can internalize it and really understand it. Thanks for explaining it.

[mrocktor]

What do you mean "has the principle"? How would he justify that principle? What rational man could conclude that the root of property isn't thought but "might makes right"?

For the sake of the argument, not that I intend to propose a full set of beleifs that I do not subscribe to:

The world is full of rational and irrational men. Thus our test subject concludes that a physical resource in the hands of someone not capable of "keeping" it is either owned by a "weak" rational individual or a "weak" irrational individual.

In the case of the resource being owned by an irrational individual, the test subject concludes that the resource will not be utilized to its maximum potential thus he is justified in taking it and using it. In the case of it belonging to a weak rational individual, the risk exists that it could be taken by someone irrational, so he takes it himself.

By the way, since you did not grant the assumption I proposed in my previous post, I understand that in the Objectivist view the right to property is the primary principle and honesty derived from it. Is this correct?

mrocktor

[AisA]

By the way, since you did not grant the assumption I proposed in my previous post, I understand that in the Objectivist view the right to property is the primary principle and honesty derived from it. Is this correct?

mrocktor

No, that is not correct. Politics is derived from ethics, not vice versa. Are you familiar with those two branches of philosophy?

[DPW]

Let me start with you final pargraph:

By the way, since you did not grant the assumption I proposed in my previous post, I understand that in the Objectivist view the right to property is the primary principle and honesty derived from it. Is this correct?

Absolutely not. Where in my argument for honesty did I mention property? The argument for honesty depends on a specific context, namely the primacy of existence, man's life as the standard of morality, man's need for moral principles, and rationality as the basic virtue. Whereas rationality says "don't evade reality," the virtue of honesty says "don't make up a new one." The reason dishonesty can't be to your interest is because you have to act on principle, and a principle that puts you at war with reality cannot be to your interest if your goal is to remain in reality.

The world is full of rational and irrational men. Thus our test subject concludes that a physical resource in the hands of someone not capable of "keeping" it is either owned by a "weak" rational individual or a "weak" irrational individual.

In the case of the resource being owned by an irrational individual, the test subject concludes that the resource will not be utilized to its maximum potential thus he is justified in taking it and using it. In the case of it belonging to a weak rational individual, the risk exists that it could be taken by someone irrational, so he takes it himself.

This represents another failure of yours to grasp hierarchy. This is a question about the nature of property. The virtue of honesty long preceds the question of property rights.

Don Watkins

[JMeganSnow]

Whereas rationality says "don't evade reality," the virtue of honesty says "don't make up a new one."

Hmm. That's not quite how I would have put it, Don:

Rationality means accepting reason as an absolute, as the ONLY means of knowledge.

Honesty includes both refusing to evade reality and refusing to try to make up a new one: the first is the mental component, recognizing that you must be honest with yourself within the confines of your own mind, the second is the existential component, when dealing with other people.

*hides nit comb behind back* Nitpicking? Me? Don't be ridiculous!

[DPW]

Megan,

It was actually Leonard Peikoff's formulation, not mine. An essential component of honesty is the refusal to fake reality. Faking requires evasion, but evasion doesn't necessarily require faking. If you re-read the relevant sections of OPAR I think you'll see the distinction.

Don Watkins

[JMeganSnow]

Don, I think you may have misread my post.

I was saying that both of the statements you made are part of honesty; i.e. that the first one "don't evade reality" isn't the characteristic description of rationality, as you had put it, but a component of honesty.

And, yes, I understand that the derivative virtues are all, in effect, components of a full, unbreached rationality. However, if we're going to delimit them as seperate for the purposes of applying them to different areas of life, it doesn't make sense to ascribe the specific characteristics of honesty to rationality. While rationality ultimately includes a policy of non-evasion, it also includes a policy of not sitting there like a lump, either, i.e. it enjoins one to embrace a policy of active use of one's reason. That's why I think the whole thing: "Don't evade reality" AND "Don't make a new one" gets shunted off under Honesty.

*pick pick pick pick*

Oops. I forgot (I love how the new software automatically merges posts): evasion is willful ignorance, correct? How does that not necessarily mean faking?

[mrocktor]

None of your answers adresses the key issue my (obviously unsuccessful) example was trying to evoke.

Ok, honesty means "not making up a new reality". Fine. However the possession of an object by an individual is not part of reality. The object exists, it is real. The individual exists, he is real. The relationship of ownership is not. It is established by whatever principles we use to determine property. Thus taking an object from another person is in no way going against reality unless we derive the right to property from reality.

My question is: how do we derive rationally the right to property without circular reference to honesty (after all you are not being dishonest in stealing if the right to property is not ratinally and independently derived).

Thanks for your patience, and for the record I am having trouble obtaining Rand's literature down here in Brazil (and I do not want a translation, which complicates matters).

mrocktor

Edited September 20, 2005 by mrocktor

[dougclayton]

Thus taking an object from another person is in no way going against reality unless we derive the right to property from reality.

My question is: how do we derive rationally the right to property without circular reference to honesty (after all you are not being dishonest in stealing if the right to property is not ratinally and independently derived).

This is true. However, the right to property does not depend on honesty per se; it depends (as all principles do) on the facts of reality that give rise to the concepts in question. What are the facts of reality that give us the concept of property? First, there is the fact that anything of use to humans must be created first before it can be a value. Even such simple values as a coconut on a deserted island or water in a stream are of no value until someone splits the coconut and collects the water. (In the trivial case, not even the air around you is of value until you expend the effort to breathe it in.) This is true for complex objects, too, and the more complex the object, the more human effort went into creating it.

Furthermore, it is a fact that in order to live, you must make use of certain valuable items: food, water, air, clothing, shelters, cars, planes, computers, etc. In fact, without physical materials, you cannot survive at all. Thus the right to life is meaningless without the right to property--it would mean the right to live without eating, breathing, or even taking up space, since land is a property. (Of course, this does not mean the right to life comes from the right to property. The opposite is true.) I will assume you agree that the right to life is grounded in reality, so I won't cover that here. (The analysis is similar, but the facts involved are broader, since it is a broader principle.)

Note that nothing in the preceding discussion involves societies or governments or references to "rights." Instead, the focus is on the nature of man--which nature is the same if he is on a deserted island or living in society.

Now, there are only two principles one can draw from these facts: a man should produce and keep those values he creates (and freely trade with others); or a man should be morally able to take, by force, values that others have created. There is no third way: a principle such as "a man should be able to produce and keep those values he creates, as well as take those of others" is self-contradictory (the ability of those "others" to keep property is granted by the first part, but taken away by the second part). A principle such as, "I should be able to keep my property and take others' property" is non-objective (there are no facts of reality that would distinguish you from anyone else in this context). And of course a "principle" such as, "A man should be able to do whatever he wants," is not a moral principle at all.

Which of the two principles above reflect reality? Which is a principle of life, and which is a principle of death? You wanted to know why an honest person should not steal, and now you have it: If a man is to be honest (that is, committed to living in accordance with the facts of reality, not against them), which of the two should he adopt?

[DPW]

I was saying that both of the statements you made are part of honesty; i.e. that the first one "don't evade reality" isn't the characteristic description of rationality, as you had put it, but a component of honesty.

And I'm saying that's wrong, and moreover, that it's certainly not the Objectivist position. Notice that Peikoff introduces the concept of evasion under his discussion of rationality. That's not to say that evasion isn't involved in dishonesty -- it is. It's just not distinctive of dishonesty.

And, yes, I understand that the derivative virtues are all, in effect, components of a full, unbreached rationality. However, if we're going to delimit them as seperate for the purposes of applying them to different areas of life, it doesn't make sense to ascribe the specific characteristics of honesty to rationality. While rationality ultimately includes a policy of non-evasion, it also includes a policy of not sitting there like a lump, either, i.e. it enjoins one to embrace a policy of active use of one's reason. That's why I think the whole thing: "Don't evade reality" AND "Don't make a new one" gets shunted off under Honesty.

I get your point, but I'm saying that evasion is the opposite of rationality, not of honesty. Rationality says, "Look at reality!" Evasion is the policy of looking away from reality. It is therefore the opposite of rationality. In other words, you're either being rational or you're evading. Honesty is something more. Quoting Peikoff:

"If rationality, as we may say, is the commitment to reality, then honesty is its obverse: it is the rejection of unreality. The exponent of the first acknowledges that existence exists; of the second, that only existence exists" (OPAR 268).

Oops. I forgot (I love how the new software automatically merges posts): evasion is willful ignorance, correct? How does that not necessarily mean faking?

Because faking, as Objectivism uses it, means more than pretending something isn't -- it's pretending something else is. If I suspect my girlfriend is cheating on me but I push the thought out of my mind, I'm evading. If my girlfriend tells me she's not cheating on me when she actually is, she's faking.

Don Watkins

[DPW]

Ok, honesty means "not making up a new reality". Fine. However the possession of an object by an individual is not part of reality. The object exists, it is real. The individual exists, he is real. The relationship of ownership is not. It is established by whatever principles we use to determine property. Thus taking an object from another person is in no way going against reality unless we derive the right to property from reality.

My question is: how do we derive rationally the right to property without circular reference to honesty (after all you are not being dishonest in stealing if the right to property is not ratinally and independently derived).

There are a couple points here: What is the justification for honesty? What is the justification for property rights? How can we say it is dishonest to violate property rights?

Well, I've given the justification for honesty. The justification for property rights, while not depending directly on the virtue of honesty, does presuppose it. That's because the rights is a political issue and political philosophy necessarily presupposes all of ethics.

Now Doug basically gave us the argument for property rights -- a property right is a recognition of a fact: that a man is entitled to the use and disposal of that which he produces. How can this right be violated? Only by force. Well, what's something unusual about force? That the man who engages in force necessarily violates every moral principle: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride.

But you are right in one sense. It's wrong to use stealing as an example of dishonesty when we're trying to establish the truth of the virtue of honesty, since stealing comes later in the hierarchy, but that's quite apart from the issue you raised.

Don Watkins

[mrocktor]

Doug, Don, thanks for working with me so far. I think we are moving in the direction of the kind of reasoning I was looking for.

Doug's point of human effort being required to transform anything into a value is granted. Ditto to the right to life. The justification of honesty (as pertains to living in reality) is also clear.

From this basis it is easy to derive that an individual has the right to the property he needs to support his life. It does not entail that the individual has the right to all the fruits of his efforts to dispose of at will, no matter how superfluous (as we are trying to demonstrate).

The derivation of a right to property from the right to life would be: "a man is entitled to the use and disposal of that which he produces to support his life".

Don's argument about the use of force, I beleive, is also not applicable. An individual only has the right to use force in defense. He can, therefore, use force in defence of his own life (this derives directly from the right to life). He can also use force in defending the property necessary to sustain his life (this derives from my conclusion above).

Until we demonstrate, independently, that the individual has a right to all of the fruits of his efforts, whether they are essential to his life or not, he is not justified in using force to protect this property.

An example (and I forward the example as an aid to comprehending the principle, not as justification):

I am a farmer and have a full crop of some foodstuff in my silo. If I find some guy eating from my stockpile of food, do I have the right to shoot him?

My derivation above would allow me to shoot the guy if he was threatening my life (i.e. eating food I will need in the winter). It would not allow me to shoot the guy if I have tons of food. Since we have not demonstrated that I have the right to that property, he does not have to use force to take it from me and the "use of force" argument is moot.

One obvious tack would be "I may need that property in the future to support my life", but I think this is rather weak.

mrocktor

Edited September 21, 2005 by mrocktor

[dougclayton]

From this basis it is easy to derive that an individual has the right to the property he needs to support his life. It does not entail that the individual has the right to all the fruits of his efforts to dispose of at will, no matter how superfluous (as we are trying to demonstrate).

The derivation of a right to property from the right to life would be: "a man is entitled to the use and disposal of that which he produces to support his life".

This is a good example of the need for context-keeping. The argument I gave demonstrated objectively (that is, by reference to the facts of reality) that property must be produced before it can be consumed and that it is the means of ensuring one's life (and ethics is concerned with life as "man qua man," not bare survival). But one cannot throw out everything else known about man and ethics and act as if that argument contains everything relevant to the issue of property.

In particular, the nature of "value" cannot be ignored. Since a value is that which one acts to gain or keep, all property is intended "to support his life." If it weren't a value, it would be discarded or given away (note: not traded away). Thus you make a false dichotomy: stuff I need vs. stuff I would prefer to keep. In truth, there is only: stuff I value (whether it be to live through the night or to buy my 11,008th painting).

Now, it is true that some particular man will choose poorly, and thus acquire items that he stockpiles for no purpose. But who is someone else to tell him what he may and may not value? And if someone else has that right, what does that do to the right to life?

Don's argument about the use of force, I beleive, is also not applicable. An individual only has the right to use force in defense. He can, therefore, use force in defence of his own life (this derives directly from the right to life). He can also use force in defending the property necessary to sustain his life (this derives from my conclusion above).

And he is using it in defense of his life: in defense of the time he spent in creating the value that someone else will expropriate. He paid for that value with a portion of his life, so acting to keep it is most assuredly acting "in defense of his life."

Consider it with a concrete example: if someone works his whole life for some goal (say, to collect all of Thomas Kinkade's numerous paintings), only to have someone else take them because "he doesn't need them to survive," what has become of his life? That person has literally stolen his life from him, by stealing his life's purpose.

Until we demonstrate, independently, that the individual has a right to all of the fruits of his efforts, whether they are essential to his life or not, he is not justified in using force to protect this property.

What is the significance of "independently"? Independently of what, exactly?

I am a farmer and have a full crop of some foodstuff in my silo. If I find some guy eating from my stockpile of food, do I have the right to shoot him?

This confuses several things, due to the frozen abstraction of "force" you are using. The right to use force is not identical to the right to shoot people. The example should have said, "do I have the right to stop him?" Whether you have the right to stop someone from stealing something is not the same as whether you have the right to shoot someone to stop them. This is the same reason the police will not just shoot a burglar on sight. To answer the amended example, yes you have the right to stop him.

Doug, Don, thanks for working with me so far. I think we are moving in the direction of the kind of reasoning I was looking for.

Well, for my part, I can say it's good to discuss this with someone who seems to be actually concerned with understanding the nature of reality. These discussions can often be a waste of time.

[hunterrose]

This all still seems a bit circular to me.

What certain facts of reality does dishonesty fake, if not some variant of property rights?

What is the basis for observing the property rights of another, if not some variant of rationality?

[DPW]

What certain facts of reality does dishonesty fake, if not some variant of property rights?

Dishonesty refers to the vice of faking reality -- it doesn't specify which facts you're faking. What it says is that, whichever facts you do fake, you're harming yourself.

What is the basis for observing the property rights of another, if not some variant of rationality?

Man has rights because he lives by reason...so it's irrational for him to violate property rights. That isn't circular. It's consistent!

Don Watkins

[dougclayton]

This all still seems a bit circular to me.

What certain facts of reality does dishonesty fake, if not some variant of property rights?

What is the basis for observing the property rights of another, if not some variant of rationality?

You can be dishonest about many things besides property rights. Dishonesty is not about property rights (or any another particular facts, per se); it is about your recognition of any facts. If you want the argument in abbreviated form, I'd put it like this:

1. You should be honest in all things; that is, you should not pretend things are otherwise than they are. (This is an inductive step Don covered extensively, with no reliance on property rights.)

2. The issue of property falls under "all things", so you should not pretend property is otherwise than it is. (This is deduction.)

3. Property consists of material goods that rightfully belong to the person who expended the effort to create them. (This is an inductive step I attempted to cover earlier, with no reliance on honesty.)

4. You should not pretend that those material goods belong to someone else. (This is deduction.)

Of course, you have to be honest to discover the truth of #3, but then you have to be honest to discover the truth of anything. As Don said, it's not circular, it's consistent.

[hunterrose]

Dishonesty refers to the vice of faking reality -- it doesn't specify which facts you're faking. What it says is that, whichever facts you do fake, you're harming yourself. [Emphasis mine]

Granted, but if dishonesty doesn't fake any particular fact, then how do you know that dishonesty fakes any facts, assuming dishonesty isn't simply defined as "faking reality?"

If you want the argument in abbreviated form, I'd put it like this:

1. You should be honest in all things; that is, you should not pretend things are otherwise than they are. (This is an inductive step Don covered extensively, with no reliance on property rights.)

Let me stop there for a second. If the Artful Dodger steals a wallet and rationalizes this action as no different from taking honey from a beehive, what makes one action honest, and the other dishonest? Variants of property rights carry the spectre of circularity.

Edited September 22, 2005 by hunterrose