tadmjones Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) As per OP and the 'Galt criteria', would it be satisfied if we accept that rights(in this context I mean the concept of rights , and legallistically the right of title and deed) are man made? Edited October 12, 2014 by tadmjones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Vect said: 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. Vect, I just wanted to complement you for your thorough, well stated arguments throughout this thread. The above quote sums up the entire thread really. Well done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Southall Posted October 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 "Objectivism doesn't condemn the use of force/coercion, but the initiation of force/coercion." Is taking the unearned from producers an initiation of force? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Southall Posted October 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 tadmjones, "As per OP and the 'Galt criteria', would it be satisfied if we accept that rights(in this context I mean the concept of rights , and legallistically the right of title and deed) are man made?" Could you clarify? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) Jon said: Is taking the unearned from producers an initiation of force?Is ownership of land itself as property an instance of the initiation of force? Edit: just realized how similar this premise of Jon's is to Rawls theory of justice. "No man can earn his brain"...... Edited October 12, 2014 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Southall Posted October 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 "Is taking the unearned from producers an initiation of force?" I'm assuming the contributor's answer to my question is "yes". A silent yes. Why the silence? Can he not bring himself to agree with me on a single point? Is this a discussion or a personal battle of wits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Southall Posted October 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) "Is ownership of land itself as property an instance of the initiation of force?" Is ownership of people as property an instance of the initiation of force? Edit: "Caused by a profound self-doubt, self-condemnation and fear, hostility is a type of projection that directs toward other people the hatred which the hostile person feels toward himself. Blaming the evil of others for his own shortcomings, he feels a chronic need to justify himself by demonstrating their evil, by seeking it, by hunting for it—and by inventing it." Now who was it that wrote that? Edited October 12, 2014 by Jon Southall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) Ironically Jon continues to evade counterarguments with psychologism by quoting from Miss Rand's denunciation of psychologizers.... Jon asked: Is ownership of people as property an instance of the initiation of force? Yes. Now show me what that has to do with owning land itself as property without invalid concepts and concept stealing. Edited October 12, 2014 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Southall Posted October 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Tell me why you think ownership of people is wrong. I want to see your reasoning - let's see you do some work for a change. Still being hostile? Do you need some help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VECT Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) This guy here is hilarious. He explicitly states his argument that since no one caused natural potentials, no one should be able to claim and rent them. Yet he advocates a "compensation" that an owner of capital should pay to others for the natural potentials his capital benefits from, that while denying any one individual should be able to claim a source of natural potential, presupposes that natural potentials should considered to be owned by ALL people. More over, he evades the fact that there is natural potential in all things man-made. This logic of his would entail not only an apartment owner pay a "compensation" for the renting of the land that supports the building, but a "compensation" from a car renter for the renting of the metal atoms that made his car, from a kitchenware renter for the renting of the sand particles that made up the glasses...etc. There is another philosophy that argues capitals should be publicly owned. Our Jon here of course doesn't argue that. He just argues part of capitals should be publicly owned. Edited October 13, 2014 by VECT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) tadmjones, "As per OP and the 'Galt criteria', would it be satisfied if we accept that rights(in this context I mean the concept of rights , and legallistically the right of title and deed) are man made?" Could you clarify? Correct me if I miss understand your argument, but to me it seems you are claiming that only man made objects can be considered property. That this is the Galt criteria. My line of reason was to suggest that ownership could be expressed in the operation of rights or the enjoyment of property rights in land . As others have shown throughout the thread rights are properly understood in O'ism to pertain to freedoms of action to better facilatate societal behaviour among groups of individuals. Applying the Law of Causality to the objects of property and ignoring the nature (and foundation) of rights and the enjoyment of rights in property leads, I believe, to a missinterpretation of O'ist politics.I especially don't understand your use of pure economic and finance terms in supporting your moral argument. Edited October 13, 2014 by tadmjones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Southall Posted October 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Vect writes: "Yet he advocates a "compensation" that an owner of capital should pay to others for the natural potentials his capital benefits from, that while denying any one individual should be able to claim a source of natural potential, presupposes that natural potentials should considered to be owned by ALL people." Another straw man argument. If you were capable of following the thread, you'd realise I am not classing land as capital. "More over, he evades the fact that there is natural potential in all things man-made. This logic of his would entail not only an apartment owner pay a "compensation" for the renting of the land that supports the building, but a "compensation" from a car renter for the renting of the metal atoms that made his car, from a kitchenware renter for the renting of the sand particles that made up the glasses...etc." Another straw man argument. Stop making things up. You are in fact breaking the forum rules with your intellectual dishonesty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Southall Posted October 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 What is the foundation and origin of rights as you understand it, tadmjones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 What is the foundation and origin of rights as you understand it, tadmjones.The metaphysically given natture of man as rational animal, and that they are only relevant or operational in a societal context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VECT Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Straw-man Jon? Aluminium atoms are not man-made. If I produce aluminium for use in production, then my exertion is the basis for my claim to have a right to gain, keep, use or dispose of the aluminium I produced (the aluminium being my wage). I was the cause of earning that aluminium by means of my exertion. It is not a right to the object I have- the aluminium atoms (which cannot be owned), but a right to action with regards to the aluminium atoms. This is consistent with Rand's and George's definitions. Can you see now why I asked why Rand specifically stated a right is a right to action with regards to the object, and not to the object. How could you own the aluminium atoms - they are not man-made - they are Land. CriticalThinker2000 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Jon A better question may be, or it may help my participation in the discussion to ask you , what do mean by 'ownership'? To me 'ownership' implies recognition by others of an individual's rightful possession or right of full disposal of a thing. Do you mean the term with the same connotation ? Because when you speak of aluminium atoms it seems you speak of it as an attribute of a 'thing'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Southall Posted October 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Yes Vect. A straw man argument. Are you claiming man is the cause of the existence of aluminium atoms? That is simply false. If you produce some aluminium that aluminium will be yours. The illogic of your position can be made clear by way of another example. You are claiming that if you grow wheat, you the take ownership of wheat genetics. I am claiming that growing some wheat entitles you to ownership of what you have grown - you do not then own the genetic code of that wheat, which you were not the cause of. You do have a right to action with your wheat, which by implication involves a right to action with the genetics of the wheat you have grown. This is different to saying by growing it you take ownership of wheat genetics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Southall Posted October 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Hi tadmjones, For me ownership does not depend on what others think. Whether someone recognises what's yours or fails to, it does not determine what is yours. Aluminium atoms were not man made. No man can declare he has a right to aluminium. It's meaningless. If he produces some aluminium then that is his wages, he has therefore got property rights over what he produced. This is what Vect doesn't understand. Aluminium produced by man is his wages and it is earned wealth. A return to labour, not land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VECT Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) This guy is unbelievable. I was claiming your logic would have extend to all capitals in existence far beyond just conventional land. You denied that and called my accusation a straw-man. So then I pulled up that quote of yours. You got caught red handed and now you are trying to evade just as always do when you get caught with your pants down. But nonetheless I will entertain your new arguments. If I were to rent the wheat I grew, do I have to pay compensation for your economic rent I supposedly have charged for those wheat genetic molecules? And while I'm at it, here's another one: If I were to build a house on a piece of unclaimed land, but never visit to use it, can another use it without my permission? Edited October 13, 2014 by VECT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig24 Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Are you claiming man is the cause of the existence of aluminium atoms? That is simply false. If you produce some aluminium that aluminium will be yours. Now I get it. You think that production is the root of ownership or that property is defined as that which is man made and only man made. Is this right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Southall Posted October 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Yes. Or more properly the law of causality. Do not forget the role of man's mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig24 Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Yes. Or more properly the law of causality. Do not forget the role of man's mind. Is it accurate to say that you think a person who makes a chair owns the chair but not the wood that makes it up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Southall Posted October 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 No, as someone would have had to get the wood. The wood gathered would have been someone's wages for their effort. One's wages are his property. This would mean they have property rights with respect to that wood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig24 Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 No, as someone would have had to get the wood. The wood gathered would have been someone's wages for their effort. One's wages are his property. This would mean they have property rights with respect to that wood. The act of gaining the wood makes the wood my property The act of gaining the land makes the land my property .. Except you don't accept the 2nd, only the first. What's the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Craig said: The act of gaining the wood makes the wood my property The act of gaining the land makes the land my property .. Except you don't accept the 2nd, only the first. What's the difference? "The wood is a preexisting material and the land is the prime source of the material. The land is a prime source, it gives but cannot be taken, the land is God!"..... Hehe, just having more fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.