The right of a king to own his castle

[samr]

Would you agree that a king that has inherited his castle without the _explicit_ use of force (everybody in the country believe in the divine right of kings), has a right to own it, and no man or group of men might take it from him by force, or from his future generations?

Would you agree that the same principle applies to a king actually owning the whole land of the country?

Edited August 23, 2011 by samr

[Ninth Doctor]

Would you agree that a king that has inherited his castle without the _explicit_ use of force (everybody in the country believe in the divine right of kings), has a right to own it, and no man or group of men might take it from him by force, or from his future generations?

Would you agree that the same principle applies to a king actually owning the whole land of the country?

Since your hypothetical includes an “everyone agrees” proviso, the question then has to be: who’s asking? Are you asking as a prospective foreign invader?

[Tanaka]

A false premise can never lead to a correct conclusion. And your premises are clearly false. Kings don't have divine rights. In fact, there is no God.

Also, people's beliefs in those false premises are irrelevant.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Tanaka

[samr]

Since your hypothetical includes an “everyone agrees” proviso, the question then has to be: who’s asking? Are you asking as a prospective foreign invader?

As a person or a group of people considering whether to take the castle of the king\the land that belongs to him by force. Then redistribute it to the democratic government (the king has only symbolic status at this point of history). Or, if you prefer, redistribute it to private people.

In the scenario, people have believed previously in the divine right of kings, so they explicitly gathered 500 years ago, gave the king a charter that declares he and all his future generations will own all of the land in the country, and the royal castle. Forever.

[GDASS]

A false premise can never lead to a correct conclusion.

This is false.

Premise 1: If you are an american citizen, you can never be president of the USA (based on current criteria) (false premise)

Premise 2: David Cameron is a US citizen (false premise)

Conclusion: Therefore David Cameron can never be president of the USA (based on current criteria) (true conclusion logically derived from false premises)

Premise 1: If a Barack Obama is 4ft tall, it follows logically that I am 6ft tall (false premise)

Premise 2: Barack Obama is 4ft tall (false premise)

Conclusion: I am 6ft tall (true conclusion derived from false premises).

[dream_weaver]

This is false.

Premise 1: If you are an american citizen, you can never be president of the USA (based on current criteria) (false premise)

Premise 2: David Cameron is a US citizen (false premise)

Conclusion: Therefore David Cameron can never be president of the USA (based on current criteria) (true conclusion logically derived from false premises)

Premise 1: If a Barack Obama is 4ft tall, it follows logically that I am 6ft tall (false premise)

Premise 2: Barack Obama is 4ft tall (false premise)

Conclusion: I am 6ft tall (true conclusion derived from false premises).

GDASS, you illustrated Tanaka's points quite succinctly!

[Ninth Doctor]

As a person or a group of people considering whether to take the castle of the king\the land that belongs to him by force. Then redistribute it to the democratic government (the king has only symbolic status at this point of history). Or, if you prefer, redistribute it to private people.

In the scenario, people have believed previously in the divine right of kings, so they explicitly gathered 500 years ago, gave the king a charter that declares he and all his future generations will own all of the land in the country, and the royal castle. Forever.

I think the Declaration of Independence covered this ground pretty well. Your hypothetical sounds quite a bit like Great Britain, are you thinking of the royal family? You want to nationalize Buckingham palace? How about giving Scotland and Wales their independence?

[Dante]

A false premise can never lead to a correct conclusion.

It can't lead to knowledge, which is a justified true statement. It can lead to a true statement by sheer luck, but that true statement is not justified by the premise.

[TrueMaterialist]

To all those who state that samr's post began on a false premise,

Samr's post was a question, not an argument. Therefore a premise was not needed, whether it is a true premise, or a false one.

Premise: a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.

Since no conclusions are made in his post, no premise is needed, so to assume that he had one is to begin your agrument on a false premise.

Those who argued that he had a premise made at least five unjustified illogical conclusions.

1 You wrongly concluded that a question required a premise.

2.By wrongly thinking a question had a premise, you wrongly concluded that his question had a conclusion.

3. you wrongly thought a question, on its own, is support for a conclusion.

4. you wrongly assumed that one question alone is an argument.

5. You assumed that "divine right" would have been his premise if he had one.

Therefore,

any one who argued that his question began in a false premise, began their argument on the false premise that he had a false premise, or the false premise that divine right was the central topic of his question. Therfore...all those arguments would lead to false conclusions.

Further, how can one argue with a question?

You can answer the question, not answer the question, or you can choose to disregard the idea of "divine right," reformulate it and answer it without any consideration for "divine right."

Whether or not there is a God is beside the point.

Fact: Kings inherited the land and rule over men and property on it. Kings owned everything. They believed it belonged to them because they believed it belonged to their bloodline.

Question: Did the people have the right to take a king's property(all property, by force.)

Now that "divinity" is clearly out of scope, why not answer the question, why avoid it?

We are all reasonible in here, arent we?

[TrueMaterialist]

to clearlify my last post:

here is Samr's question:

"Would you agree that a king that has inherited his castle without the _explicit_ use of force (everybody in the country believe in the divine right of kings), has a right to own it, and no man or group of men might take it from him by force, or from his future generations?

Would you agree that the same principle applies to a king actually owning the whole land of the country?"

I will take his added unneeded detail out, to show you how the question still functions:

"Would you agree that a king that has inherited his castle without the _explicit_ use of force has a right to own it, and no man or group of men might take it from him by force, or from his future generations?

Would you agree that the same principle applies to a king actually owning the whole land of the country?"

Do you see how the question still makes sense, without the detial that you are incorrectly calling a premise?

The minor detail that you are attacking is an inconsequential one.

I will answer Samr's question first:

My answer is NO. No man has the right to own all the property in one country, or on earth, and deny the other men the right to property.if anyone here interpreted his question to mean this:Since, kings and the people controlled by them, beleived the false premise that a king had a divine right to rule over people and own all of the land and therfore had a phyiscal right to that land, would you agree that a king that has inherited his castle without the _explicit_ use of force has a right to own it, and no man or group of men might take it from him by force, or from his future generations? Would you agree that the same principle applies to a king actually owning the whole land of the country?And any one in here meant to answer:"The premise that a man has a divine right to anything is a false one and therefore the conclusion that "no man or group of men might take it from him by force, or from his future generations" is also false because a false premise always leads to a false conclusion,"then their answer is correct.

Edited September 28, 2011 by TrueMaterialist

[TrueMaterialist]

I would like to pose this argument.

a "right" is always a divine idea. It implies that we were predetermined to have something, that some how we are entitled to things, for reasons that are never explained. A "right" is a conclusion without reason...a value judgement, based not on fact, or logic, or reason.

a "wrong" is proven far more easily. We have "wrongs." Whatever we decide to do without a logical reason is wrong.

For example:

Why can't I kill a child?

Well, since there is no logical reason to kill a child, it is wrong to kill a child. It would be an irrational, illogical, unreasonible act, therfore it is wrong.

This is just an exploration....take what will from it.

Scrutinize it if you want to.

At the very least, we must conclude that more "rights" are determined by our conclusions of wrongs...and some "rights" are wrongs because they are unsupported by logical rational reasoning.

[Atlas-]

Would you agree that a king that has inherited his castle without the _explicit_ use of force (everybody in the country believe in the divine right of kings), has a right to own it, and no man or group of men might take it from him by force, or from his future generations?

Would you agree that the same principle applies to a king actually owning the whole land of the country?

You have said that he is not making a point but rather asking a question. But looking at te languge it can be interpreted in another way entirely. The phrase "would you agree" can either be seen as "do you think..." or "This is what I think do you..." in the case it is a question and so has no premises, in the case of the second it is a statement of what he or others belive and asking you if you agree, this means that it does include premises.

Even saying this you're argument is infact invalid as you are basing it on a false premises, that being that a question does not infact have a premises. This is of course false, a question is asking whether a fact or idea is true or false, to do this you must propose an idea to evaluate it. An idea is based on premises and therefore premises must be included in a question.

In reply to the question, No, as you can not take without the use of force whether through physical force or that of depriving people of their land and the thought that it is their's. It is all force and thereofre is unlawful, the only proper and logical option is to sell the land to the highest bidders and using the money earned to fund the courts/police/army.

[Grames]

As a person or a group of people considering whether to take the castle of the king\the land that belongs to him by force. Then redistribute it to the democratic government (the king has only symbolic status at this point of history). Or, if you prefer, redistribute it to private people.

In the scenario, people have believed previously in the divine right of kings, so they explicitly gathered 500 years ago, gave the king a charter that declares he and all his future generations will own all of the land in the country, and the royal castle. Forever.

It doesn't matter how hopelessly tangled up the people have made their own country. You know that you don't own it and have no right to it, so don't invade.