Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 On 2/24/2016 at 11:22 PM, New Buddha said: You cannot understand Objectivism's Theory of Property until you understand the historical roots of Modern Materialism (i.e. Marxism, and to a lesser extent Anarchism). Why? I know that Rand explicitly outlined Objectivism as response to Marxism, but that doesn't make either one a derivative from or logically dependent on the other. On 2/24/2016 at 3:09 PM, New Buddha said: Of the three components of Property, INTELLECT, LABOR AND MATERIALS - only Labor is "owned" by an individual per Anarchism and Marxism. That is a valid characterization of my position. I take issue with Marx's Labor Theory of Value. Marx never admitted any distinction between spending eight hours planting seeds in a field and spending eight hours planting pebbles in that same field: both require the same movements of the same muscles, and so (according to Marx) both must produce the same "value". I do not share that error. I know that planting seeds will produce far more value than planting pebbles. Furthermore, I know that the source of this enhancement of value (to distinguish between seeds and rocks and to know which one to plant) comes from man's mind. So I do not agree that my position (or Devil's Advocate's or Don Athos') is directly reducible to Marx's because -as any farmer with half a brain could see- his Labor Theory of Value isn't worth the paper it's been printed on. However, if you were to specify that we're drawing an analogy between that and what one might call a "Labor Theory of Ownership" then you would've made a valid point which we could proceed to reason from. On 2/24/2016 at 3:09 PM, New Buddha said: A person can own both the idea and the material form of the idea. (By idea, I do not mean that a person own the abstract idea of "transportation" or "car", but a person can own the Design Patent for a 2016 Honda Accord). I believe that distinction is arbitrary and indefensible, but that may not be the best place to start. I hold to the Labor Theory of Ownership, which runs contrary to Rand's articulation of IP. However, I believe that my position is consistent with the Objectivist Metaphysics, Epistemology and Ethics, while Rand's is not. Let's start there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 I'm going to point out every single error made so far in this thread. This may take a while. On 11/6/2015 at 11:48 AM, Nicky said: What does that have to do with anything? Did you read the OP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted March 23, 2016 Report Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: Did you read the OP? I have no idea. Edited March 23, 2016 by Nicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Page 1 --- On 11/7/2015 at 6:29 PM, Eiuol said: The thing about scarcity as a principle is that we get into this questioning of where to draw the line. Scarcity can't answer it. So we use a principle in terms of what in fact establishes value: discovering a particular use for -some- idea in a realizable way. Planting all the corn and harvesting is a matter of the thought process behind it. Same if you attribute value to a song. Anyway, ideas are scarce. If you wanna be picky, there are a finite number of ways to put together ideas. If you represent all ideas as bytes, you can work out possible ideas at a point in time. It wouldn't be 'superabundant' either, it's not as though ideas materialize from nothing. The possible ideas in 1,000 years will be different. This applies to land, since land is represented with lengths. Bytes are as tangible as length, i.e. not at all. 1: Ideas are not scarce. A single idea can be used simultaneously by one person, two people or seven billion people (and so on and so forth) without anyone having to lose, or even stop using, that idea. The number of thinkable thoughts in the universe is completely irrelevant. 2: Scarcity is the line. Whether or not your usage of a thing physically prohibits my own is as clear-cut as you can get. 3: I'll also point out that you're calling scarcity an impractical standard, in one hand, while using it to justify IP (since "ideas are scarce") in the other. You're making two arguments, both of which are wrong, and which also contradict each other. On 11/7/2015 at 1:07 PM, Eiuol said: I already explained how scarcity as you mean it would apply to ideas (limited to implementations). You didn't address it at all. Oh, baby, I'll address any part of it you want me to. On 11/7/2015 at 11:58 AM, Craig24 said: You don't lose the idea. You lose the potential it has in trade if it is copied and used free of compensation to the artist or inventor. Except that the money people might've given someone if he'd invented some "Material X" first, instead of some competitor, wasn't ever his to claim - was it? Nor would it have been his money if he'd decided not to invent Material X at all (or tried and failed, or anything else). And if he invents Material X and some competitor starts producing it too, his competitors profits aren't somehow a "loss" of his own money - it was never his, in the first place. If an inventor owns his potential sales then I own my potential jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 Page 2 --- On 11/9/2015 at 7:02 PM, freestyle said: This is not the basis for an Objectivist's defense of property rights. Yes, it is. If you bake a loaf of bread and I eat it, you will go hungry. Why? Because the bread could only be eaten once - it was finite. This is the only connection between the fact that you must support your own life through such loaves of bread and the identification of your right to dispose of them. If bread rained from the sky freely then ownership of any given loaf would be a moot point; we'd consume them with no more forethought than we give to the air we breathe. Make no mistake: "property rights" per Objectivism are founded on the fact of physical scarcities. On 11/9/2015 at 10:05 PM, Eiuol said: Technically, all property is a monopoly to the extent you are sole owner of all usage of the thing in question. Sole controller. Yep. That - that would be exactly what Romero spent the first page trying to explain to you about "scarcity" and the hole in your argument against it and what I just explained to Freestyle. On 11/9/2015 at 7:14 AM, Craig24 said: Yes you do. You lose the opportunity to sell the pirated copies of your song. Did I miss something? Can a person own an opportunity, now (and an opportunity for someone else to choose to trade, at that)? On 11/10/2015 at 2:35 PM, Craig24 said: Why does an artist have the right to commercialize copies of his original work if he doesn't own the copies? Could you please rephrase the question? I'm not pointing it out as any kind of error; I'm just having a hard time disambiguating what you're trying to ask. On 11/10/2015 at 11:53 AM, Spiral Architect said: Scarcity is irrelevant outside of later arguments involving pricing and like evaluations in the field of economics. See my response to Freestyle. Spiral Architect - there were 17 individual things wrong with that post; enough to top Eiuol's accumulative score in one fell swoop. I cannot lay them all out for you; my brain would explode. Suffice it to say that you're winning. Devil's Advocate 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted March 24, 2016 Report Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) HD be careful about putting too much emphasis on "scarcity" of the raw resource "lying" about ready to be found, with the property right arising from the creation of values incorporating them. Imagine the Oceans were infinitely deep and filled with fresh water. How would you argue that there could be property rights to any of the infinitely non-scarce resource? If you go down from the city and bring a glass of water back with you, what makes it yours? Certainly NOT, the scarcity (actually lack thereof) of the infinite store of water in the Oceans. The water you have in your glass has value, by virtue of what? If a thirsty man in the city can see the infinite Ocean, why would your bringing a glass of water to him constitute a value? Is the mere vision of the untouched and unreachable resource in the distance, already a value or is it entirely worthless until... until what? You can imagine a quasi infinite store of any resource (the universe is TEEMING with such stores and they are "there" ... waiting to be wished into your pocket, or obtained... how?). Energy itself in the universe, in comparison to each human life is effectively infinite as well... it's everywhere and the scale of its magnitude is stupefying. What gives you a right to property in the complete absence of scarcity of the raw resources? Answer this first and much will follow. ......................... Questions to consider: What then actually IS "scarce"? Certainly the time each of us has is scarce... we ARE finite and have only so much time to spend on each thing, on pursuing and creating values. Certainly the raw resources "out there" are effectively infinite (including energy), yet are valueless to you, [ironically the most abundant stores in the universe are currently valueless to you]... until ... until what? What DOES it mean to CREATE value? Edited March 24, 2016 by StrictlyLogical JASKN and dream_weaver 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted April 5, 2016 Report Share Posted April 5, 2016 On 3/24/2016 at 8:48 AM, StrictlyLogical said: What DOES it mean to CREATE value? I can't remember if this is the proper way to spell "non-sequiter" so I'm gonna call it a null pointer. You're trying to show that values are created by the human mind. That's fine; I'm happy to concede your point, but the fact that some thing is the product of a mind doesn't necessarily make it valuable. For example: try watching Now You See Me and ask yourself whether or not the materials used to manufacture it were more valuable before they were mined. It's the wrong question. Null pointer. What does it mean to take a value (as in an initiation of force)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted April 5, 2016 Report Share Posted April 5, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: I can't remember if this is the proper way to spell "non-sequiter" so I'm gonna call it a null pointer. 3 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: It's the wrong question. Null pointer. It's not a non sequitur. Values are crucial to life and their creation is at the root of property. 3 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: You're trying to show that values are created by the human mind. I never once used the term "mind". I asked a question to make you think and move the discussion further. Interestingly, although "mind" was not my point or even my destination, you have brought it up all on your own. 3 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: the fact that some thing is the product of a mind doesn't necessarily make it valuable Are you kidding? You concede "coal is black" and you feel you need to tell me "not all black things are coal"? Why do you think I would think it and what possible value would such a statement have on a discussion? Of course mind does not automatically create value... I know of MANY examples of products of minds which are valueless.. ironically your particular statement in this context would be an example... therefor it is valuable as an illustration.. which makes it not valuable as an illustration.. which (caught myself in a self-referential error) 3 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: For example: try watching Now You See Me and ask yourself whether or not the materials used to manufacture it were more valuable before they were mined. I have no idea what you are talking about. I will not speculate but I will submit generally that values are objective but contextual and potential value can be made valuable through causation. All values to be fully realized require causation through human agency. If you want to explain your example I would welcome hearing about it. 3 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: What does it mean to take a value (as in an initiation of force)? This is a loaded question which by the way does not serve to investigate the basis for property rights. I will attempt to dismantle it while answering it. 1. The concept "initiation of force" is to be distinguished from "force" as such. As soon as the term "initiation" is used "rights" are invoked, i.e. a distinction between force rightly and morally used in retaliation for the violation of a right and any force which is not used in such a manner. Force which violates integrity of the person, freedom, property, etc. including the threat of force and fraud all count as "initiation of force". Unfortunately, because the concept "initiation" of force presupposes what rights are, i.e. presupposes how and when force as such qualifies as initiation versus rightful retaliation, it cannot technically be used to "define" any rights. The concept "initiation" does not define what rights are, "initiation" is "defined" with reference to the context of the force and its status in the background of validly formulated rights, including property rights. Restated, invoking the concept "initiation of force" simultaneously presupposes the violation of an existing right and cannot be the starting point for any investigation validating or deriving rights. 2.a. The concept "take" is a narrow and superficial term which has tangible or materialistic undertones. "Take" implies physical conversion of possession, and implies someone "had" the value prior to its being taken "from" them after which someone else "has" it. IT presupposed the kind of value that can be possessed by one and then possessed by another. It does not encompass things like destruction, deterioration, redirecting away, unjust enrichment, alienation, trespass, squatting (which list is only illustrative and not exhaustive), or any other broadly defined violation of a property right. "Take" implies very narrowly specific kinds of "things", and very narrowly a small class of kinds of actions in respect of those things. 2.b. The concept "take a value" implicitly gives rise to a presupposition (although not necessarily) of property. In some sense one can say "if what I pick up from there is not property I have not taken a value". In exactly an analogous manner to the above, one cannot investigate situations where one "takes value" or does "not take value" in an investigation of the fundamentals of property. Why? Because, invoking the concept of "taking a value" or "not taking a value" presupposes in the context whether the value is property or not and hence whether the action constitutes violation. "Taking a value" is a narrow example of the violation of certain property rights in particular things by way of particular actions, simultaneously as such constituting an initiation of force, specifically the conversion of some item subject to property rights which one individual already possesses to another person. This presupposes the kind of item subject to property rights which can be possessed and whose possession can be converted to another. Edited April 5, 2016 by StrictlyLogical Tweaked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted April 5, 2016 Report Share Posted April 5, 2016 5 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: ... What does it mean to take a value (as in an initiation of force)? 1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said: ... "Taking a value" is a narrow example of the violation of certain property rights in particular things by way of particular actions, simultaneously as such constituting an initiation of force, specifically the conversion of some item subject to property rights which one individual already possesses to another person. This presupposes the kind of item subject to property rights which can be possessed and whose possession can be converted to another. I pluck a pretty pebble from a beach and you wrestle it from my hand and drop it back into the sand. Has a violation of rights occurred? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted April 5, 2016 Report Share Posted April 5, 2016 3 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said: I pluck a pretty pebble from a beach and you wrestle it from my hand and drop it back into the sand. Has a violation of rights occurred? I would say this is a very basic example of the violation of rights. I could explain why the action is a violation which depends upon identifying what rights have been violated which would depend upon a proper identification and validation of those rights from moral principles, which would require an identification and validation of morality and ethics itself, which would require identification and validation of epistemology and metaphysics, which by the way would result in a complete rejection of "the arbitrary", "the intrinsic", and "the supernatural". I am quite certain we have diametrically opposed conceptions of what metaphysics, epistemology, morality, and rights are, and therefor nothing gained from any further investigation. Oddly enough, my saying "A violation of rights have occurred" is conceptually a "universe away" from, i.e. of a meaning wholly unrelated in any way to, your saying the very exact same words. The coincidence of our uttering the same statement as a truth couldn't be farther from indicating agreement than our uttering statements which superficially were explicitly in contradiction with each other. It's unfortunate but it is true is it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted April 5, 2016 Report Share Posted April 5, 2016 (edited) It is not. What is unfortunate is that you would pass from agreement to dismissal in one reply. For future reference, what we agree on is: 1) A violation of rights has occurred. 2) The rights violated aren't arbitrary or supernatural. 3) Whether the rights are intrinsic depends on the degree to which they support the Law of Identity as applied to Man. You will claim that is strictly an objective observation as opposed to subjective or intrinsic, and I won't press the point. Edited April 5, 2016 by Devil's Advocate To complete the response Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted April 5, 2016 Report Share Posted April 5, 2016 Honestly, from what I recall, we had a frustrating discussion about what rights actually are in connection with a discussion of so called "animal rights". Does your concept of rights still include Animal rights? I remain skeptical about how useful a discussion would be about property rights if we cannot agree on what rights are in the first place. Harrison Danneskjold and dream_weaver 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted April 5, 2016 Report Share Posted April 5, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Devil's Advocate said: 3) Whether the rights are intrinsic depends on the degree to which they support the Law of Identity as applied to Man. You will claim that is strictly an objective observation as opposed to subjective or intrinsic, and I won't press the point. Unfortunately, the claim to "intrinsic" rights IS an arbitrary assertion, there being no evidence for the existence of "intrinsic" rights. So, in that sense, their "intrinsic-ness" is arbitrary. An aspect of (your?) concept "rights" being arbitrary, poisons the well, or at least cuts it off from my conception of rights. Edited April 5, 2016 by StrictlyLogical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted April 5, 2016 Report Share Posted April 5, 2016 1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said: ... An aspect of (your?) concept "rights" being arbitrary, poisons the well, or at least cuts it off from my conception of rights. I've already addressed and conceded this point to you so there's no need to pursue it further other than to restate my conception of rights isn't arbitrary or supernatural (as indicated by note 2 above). 3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said: Honestly, from what I recall, we had a frustrating discussion about what rights actually are in connection with a discussion of so called "animal rights". Does your concept of rights still include Animal rights? I remain skeptical about how useful a discussion would be about property rights if we cannot agree on what rights are in the first place. 4) Man is the only animal that presumes a right to deny others the same freedom of action and then defend it as being "intellectual". The movement of the pebble in my example involves at least one instance theft; that much is objectively apparent. Either I took something from your beach, or you took something from my hand. We can deduce the transfer wasn't welcomed by either party, thus a violation of property rights occurs depending who the proper owner of that pebble is. The same may be said to be true of intellectual property. I don't believe I've relied on any arbitrary or supernatural powers to determine this much, nor harmed any animals in the process. What say you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted April 5, 2016 Report Share Posted April 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said: I've already addressed and conceded this point to you so there's no need to pursue it further other than to restate my conception of rights isn't arbitrary or supernatural (as indicated by note 2 above). 4) Man is the only animal that presumes a right to deny others the same freedom of action and then defend it as being "intellectual". The movement of the pebble in my example involves at least one instance theft; that much is objectively apparent. Either I took something from your beach, or you took something from my hand. We can deduce the transfer wasn't welcomed by either party, thus a violation of property rights occurs depending who the proper owner of that pebble is. The same may be said to be true of intellectual property. I don't believe I've relied on any arbitrary or supernatural powers to determine this much, nor harmed any animals in the process. What say you? I do respect your restraint as I can detect some frustration. As it turns out I can also say, and you can quote me "the pebble example is an example of the violation of someone's rights." [assuming we did not give each other permission to act we each did] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted April 5, 2016 Report Share Posted April 5, 2016 Before we get into the meat of your response, I'd like to straighten out a few of the smaller things. 6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said: I never once used the term "mind". I asked a question to make you think and move the discussion further. Interestingly, although "mind" was not my point or even my destination, you have brought it up all on your own. Of course. 6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said: Values are crucial to life and their creation is at the root of property. Yup. 6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said: Are you kidding? You concede "coal is black" and you feel you need to tell me "not all black things are coal"? Why do you think I would think it and what possible value would such a statement have on a discussion? In order to save us both some time and preempt the line of reasoning I thought you were trying to initiate (not that you'd explicitly make that mistake, while paying full attention to it, but that it might factor into things down the road). I'm glad to see an abscence of any contention on that point, too. I did not mean to insult your intelligence by pointing out that "value" means something above and beyond "manmade", just as I assume that you didn't mean to insult mine by asking about 'the root of money'. That's not passive aggression. My immediate, reflexive response to your post was outrage that you would suspect me of making such a rudimentary error. However, after taking a moment to think about it, I concluded that any insult I perceived was not intentional; that it was an honest mistake and that the rational response would be to correct it, calmly - like this. Also, while I did think it might be a relevant point, it was the least significant one I saw. I do that. When I'm giving a serious response to something I'll start off with the simplist and least important points before gradually working my way up to the heavy stuff (again, just like this). Last night, after posting that around 3:00 AM, I fell asleep. 6 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said: I have no idea what you are talking about. ... If you want to explain your example I would welcome hearing about it. It's a movie I despise. My point was that the raw materials used to make it become less valuable, for being made into that movie. It was a joke. I find this thread extremely upsetting (just in what's been said so far). I haven't looked at it in ages because it blows my blood pressure through the roof. I thought it best to get back into it with a completely innocuous assertion, that everyone involved would agree with (and which would head off one possible tangent) and a joke about bad art. Now that I've covered my most superficial thoughts on your response, I'm going to take a few moments (and cigarettes) before getting to the rest of it. In the immortal words of Kahn: shall we begin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted April 5, 2016 Report Share Posted April 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: Before we get into the meat of your response, I'd like to straighten out a few of the smaller things. Of course. Yup. In order to save us both some time and preempt the line of reasoning I thought you were trying to initiate (not that you'd explicitly make that mistake, while paying full attention to it, but that it might factor into things down the road). I'm glad to see an abscence of any contention on that point, too. I did not mean to insult your intelligence by pointing out that "value" means something above and beyond "manmade", just as I assume that you didn't mean to insult mine by asking about 'the root of money'. That's not passive aggression. My immediate, reflexive response to your post was outrage that you would suspect me of making such a rudimentary error. However, after taking a moment to think about it, I concluded that any insult I perceived was not intentional; that it was an honest mistake and that the rational response would be to correct it, calmly - like this. Also, while I did think it might be a relevant point, it was the least significant one I saw. I do that. When I'm giving a serious response to something I'll start off with the simplist and least important points before gradually working my way up to the heavy stuff (again, just like this). Last night, after posting that around 3:00 AM, I fell asleep. It's a movie I despise. My point was that the raw materials used to make it become less valuable, for being made into that movie. It was a joke. I find this thread extremely upsetting (just in what's been said so far). I haven't looked at it in ages because it blows my blood pressure through the roof. I thought it best to get back into it with a completely innocuous assertion, that everyone involved would agree with (and which would head off one possible tangent) and a joke about bad art. Now that I've covered my most superficial thoughts on your response, I'm going to take a few moments (and cigarettes) before getting to the rest of it. In the immortal words of Kahn: shall we begin? No reference to the self-referential infinite loop I got caught in? I thought that was rather funny... like an awkward slip and fall. Harrison Danneskjold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted April 5, 2016 Report Share Posted April 5, 2016 There are two conditions which I believe will help to make this more productive than it has been, historically. Firstly, we phrase our own arguments in our own words. Restating (or even quoting) Rand is fine, so long as it's accompanied by a such a rephrasement. Secondly, we refrain from making points by way of Jeopardy-style questions. Every IP thread I've seen to date has ended in mindless quote-bombing, streams of questions-answered-with-questions or "I'm sorry you're too stupid to know you're wrong" (this last one primarily being my doing). If we avoid those things then we should at least be able to take this a step further than we have before. 9 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said: This is a loaded question which by the way does not serve to investigate the basis for property rights. That's true. The way I first got a firm grasp of what "property" is was by imagining what life would be like without any such idea; where any time anybody pleased they could walk into 'your' house, eat all of 'your' food and leave cigarette burns in 'your' furniture. In what ways would that make my life different? I believe that its primary effect would be on my ability to plan and act long-range. Why save food for tomorrow, if someone else might eat it tonight? Why try to keep things clean and organized, when you can never predict the next time someone will waltz in and wreck it? Why live in your own house, really? It'd be more cost-effective to use other peoples'. Why build a house for anyone to use, abuse and destroy? Why try to build anything? *these are rhetorical questions* So I think that my capacity to consume the values I produce is important because it's necessary for long-term planning, which is necessary for just about everything else. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted April 6, 2016 Report Share Posted April 6, 2016 1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: ... The way I first got a firm grasp of what "property" is was by imagining what life would be like without any such idea; where any time anybody pleased they could walk into 'your' house, eat all of 'your' food and leave cigarette burns in 'your' furniture. In what ways would that make my life different? ... I recently viewed a pretty good example of a life without rights on the Nature Channel. It was titled The Nut Thief and featured two squirrels' efforts to prepare for the coming winter. A younger squirrel spent his days collecting nuts and hiding them in his burrow unaware that an older squirrel had discovered his cache and was taking the nuts while he was away. Eventually the younger squirrel caught the older one in the act. Amazing what high-res filming with enhanced sound can record these days. The violence of their fight was incredible. Don't mess with another squirrel's nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted April 6, 2016 Report Share Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said: Don't mess with another squirrel's nuts. I might have added: The moral of this tail is: Around here, bread gets used right down to the crusts. The crusts will sometimes accumulate a few bags of them prior to being broken up and tossed outside for the critters. Last winter, after tossing the crusts out, the next day, it was observed that the snow in the vicinity of where the crusts lie was strewn with red lines and dots. That was odd. It looked like blood in the snow. A few days later, a squirrel was out sitting atop one of the planters. What was odd about this squirrel was that its tail was only about an inch long, and it wasn't bushy. Now I don't know that the other critter in the scuffle was a squirrel, but it didn't take much there to put two and two together. I haven't seen 'Stubby' this year. Given a life expectancy of a fox squirrel, and my lack of ability to discern ones age by sight . . . I am glad, however, that the potted plants don't appear to fight. (Is empathy warranted or—more strongly—obligated for the squirrel on behalf of the observer?) Edited April 6, 2016 by dream_weaver Parenthetical consideration added. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted April 6, 2016 Report Share Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: where any time anybody pleased they could walk into 'your' house, eat all of 'your' food and leave cigarette burns in 'your' furniture. In what ways would that make my life different? I understand concretes are useful in building up a concept, however your concretes are all material and tangible. "House", "food", "furniture". I suggest speaking of higher level concretes that lead to the "stuff" if we want to avoid presupposition of property only being in tangible stuff, i.e. if we honestly want to genuinely investigate whether there is property in intangibles, we cannot start off in a direction presupposing that property is only in tangibles. We must also be careful to understand that the stuff is not the property right. Property is not stuff generally, it is the "something" to which you have a property right. As such the somethings to which property rights attach are secondary, it is the "why" of the property rights that are the concretes we need to look at, prior to deciding the "what" that those rights can attach to. 13 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: So I think that my capacity to consume the values I produce is important because it's necessary for long-term planning, which is necessary for just about everything else. Consumption is a specific kind of use of a specific kind of property, namely, consumables. 13 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said: What do you think? So far this is a very narrow discussion of particular examples of property which does not rise to the level of breadth required to understand the reasons for property rights as such. Edited April 6, 2016 by StrictlyLogical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted April 6, 2016 Report Share Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) Addition Edit: HD Since for the moment in this discussion we want to abstract away property rights from the particular kinds of things in which property resides which we use as examples to investigate property rights, I think the main focus for now should not be the kinds of things subject to property rights but what differentiates the contexts where property rights do arise in various things and those contexts (with the very same kinds of various things) where rights do not arise. So X1 subject to property rights and X2 not subject to property rights where X1 and X2 are the same "but for" what happened differently in the contexts to give rise to the property right in one case and not give rise to a property right in the other. Actually, I would like to refer to X1 and X2 in the abstract when possible. Edited April 6, 2016 by StrictlyLogical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted April 6, 2016 Report Share Posted April 6, 2016 @ StrictlyLogical - Interesting approach @ dream_weaver (Can you observe a reaction to pain without feeling something?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted April 6, 2016 Report Share Posted April 6, 2016 22 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said: @ StrictlyLogical - Interesting approach @ dream_weaver (Can you observe a reaction to pain without feeling something?) Structurally speaking I and the squirrel have common and/or very similar brain structures, those most primitive in mine, and those most recently evolved in his. The "squirrel in me" squirrel-feels his squirrel-pain ("feeling" qua squirrel are not "feelings" qua man, same for "pain"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's Advocate Posted April 6, 2016 Report Share Posted April 6, 2016 You cannot feel his pain, but you can understand and share it. 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.