A question about property rights

[y_feldblum]

That’s really more than fair – and it shows that the concept of property and the respect thereof are wonderful social conventions

No; it shows that property is a moral principle, one which a rational individual would practice irrespective of the currently popular social fiction that other people practice. “I find theft disgusting” - on principle, not in practice. Apparently, the “also …” mutual respect clause is what you thought he meant as the main point.

What I want is to see someone show me that property and ownership are something other than invented ideas that keep the wheels greased.

Okay, again, without reference to social fictions. You have mind/reason, and that feature of you distinguishes you from species with only conceptual consciousness and is also mankind’s mode of survival and existence. Mind/reason only operate when a concept called private property is present; therefore mankind only exists as mankind when it observes the principle of private property. On the other hand, it is perfectly well entitled to exist without such a concept - but then it would exist ony with conceptual consciousness just like all the other animals, without mind/reason functioning at all. Private property is, then, a necessary condition of the existence of man qua man, ie, the only method of sustaining the mind. Since it actually sustains the mind, it is not a social fiction and is rather an actual thing.

[y_feldblum]

What exclusive claim have I got on an organization that I value?

You have got none. What exclusive claim have you got on a car which you haven’t bought yet which you value? That is why I introduced the concept of trading here. However, by the fact that exclusive claim at all exists on an organization, it is possible to value it or derive benefit from it. You will notice that I repeated myself because you asked the same question twice, and you will further notice that I am starting to sound scarily like RC, only without his mod powers.

Tell me whether the fact that I will pay more for an advertised product than I will for an unadvertised product of similar quality means that the advertised product is of greater value than its otherwise equivalent counterpart.

I will answer by saying a) no and B) you again evaded the value of information.

Contracts? I told you that there was a one-year warranty, and that a year had passed. Answer the question. Will you feel ripped off?

Does a one-year warranty tell you that things are expected to start going wrong sometimes after one year because no product is perfect? Yes. It doesn’t tell you that the product is supposed to remain perfect forever; it tells you that the manufacturer expects things to stay perfect for up to a year, and after that it can’t guarantee anything becase the laws of nature decided to start being what they are.

Actually, I was going to tell you that I dated my wife longer than you dated yours, and tell you that we’ve been married longer. Then I was going to offer to trade. I mean, obviously my wife is of greater value than yours is, because I invested more time in pursuing her. Assuming both our wives were willing, would you jump at the deal?

Now, read up on what a “sunk cost” is (in short, something you’ve already paid that you cannot get back but which does not count in value). But, the marginal value of one more unit of your wife is huge to you but comparatively tiny to me; therefore, we will not be able to agree on a price at which to trade. But, to understand this concept fully, which you will not because I haven’t explained it near enough as of yet, you will have to research marginal value on your own.

A claim is ability to arbitrary use and disposal. Excellent. I will go back and read some of your older stuff with this in mind. Just for my personal edification: ownership is simply exclusive claim, correct?

About my personal definitions? On both counts.

What’s the Oist definition of mysticism?

That which is not reality.

[One_Shot_Wonder]

Mind/reason only operate when a concept called private property is present

Wrong. Dead, flat-out wrong. I’ve told you several times why it’s wrong, and you never come back with a satifying response, you just say the same wrong thing again.

[One_Shot_Wonder]

However, by the fact that exclusive claim at all exists on an organization

you again evaded the value of information.

Does a one-year warranty tell you that things are expected to start going wrong sometimes after one year because no product is perfect?  Yes.  It doesn’t tell you that the product is supposed to remain perfect forever; it tells you that the manufacturer expects things to stay perfect for up to a year, and after that it can’t guarantee anything becase the laws of nature decided to start being what they are.

A claim is ability to arbitrary use and disposal. Excellent. I will go back and read some of your older stuff with this in mind. Just for my personal edification: ownership is simply exclusive claim, correct?

About my personal definitions?  On both counts.

What’s the Oist definition of mysticism?

That which is not reality.

Who has exclusive claim on an organization? And more importantly, why do you keep ducking the god(s) question?

This is the first time you’ve used this term. What do you mean by “the value of information”?

You’re not telling me whether you’d feel ripped off if an expensive DVD player broke right after the warranty lapsed.

And you said before that non-exclusive claim is the same as no-claim, correct? That if a claim isn’t exclusive, it might as well not be there at all? If that’s the case, in what important way is exclusive claim not the exact same thing as ownership?

Well, no, then. A social fiction is a subset of “that which is not reality”. The present king of England is not reality, but it isn’t a social fiction; things like religion, however, are (from an atheistic perspective) social fictions, because people buy into them and change their priorities for them and value them and treat them like they’re real.

[y_feldblum]

<< Mind/reason only operate when a concept called private property is present >>

Wrong. Dead, flat-out wrong. I’ve told you several times why it’s wrong

I don’t believe you have.

Who has exclusive claim on an organization?

Those who own it, however that is defined in law.

And more importantly, why do you keep ducking the god(s) question?

I didn’t mean to; the answer is a mystic derives some benefit from his own imagination, from social interaction, and from fun activities.

This is the first time you’ve used this term. What do you mean by “the value of information”?

Equally sorry. It’s just that I’m in debate with another person on the exact same topic that you mentioned and and I’ve used that term many times there (every time ignored, which explains the uncharming demeanor), but who is who sort of slipped my mind.

You’re not telling me whether you’d feel ripped off if an expensive DVD player broke right after the warranty lapsed.

No, because I know what the warranty means and what I’m paying for. Obviously, if it broke too soon and customer service sucked, I would switch to another company. Things generally last well past their “lifetime”, because companies try to be “nice” and keep you as a customer, but they don’t “have to”.

And you said before that non-exclusive claim is the same as no-claim, correct?

Yes. There is no effective difference, other than the words used in the dictionary (me) definition.

That if a claim isn’t exclusive, it might as well not be there at all?

Bingo.

If that’s the case, in what important way is exclusive claim not the exact same thing as ownership?

Relevancy? And, in no important way or in any way whatsoever.

Well, no, then. A social fiction is a subset of “that which is not reality”.

You’re right - I didn’t care too much to give a careful definition for mysticism. In fact, right now I can’t come up with a nice concise formal definition for mysticism, but maybe later.

[Tom_Rexton]

Assuming that the original question on the existence of ownership is still the topic of this thread, let me continue from my previous post on the existence of property…

Because ownership is the relationship between an owner and his property, One Shot Wonder’s question on its existence ultimately reduces to a question on the existence of property. In order to prove the existence of property, it is necessary that we have an exact definition of property, so that we can retrace its formation as concept and thereby prove its validity as a concept.

The following is a definition of property:

In a socio-political economic context, property is anything that one has the exclusive right to keep, to use and to dispose of in any way, by any means, for any reason and for any length of time that does not violate the rights of others.

I formed this definition after observing the characteristics of that which we call “property”. Property can be anything that exists–be it abstract or concrete. Therefore, its distinguishing (and thus essential) characteristic is not any of its inherent qualities or attributes, but its _ relationship _ to a particular entity: man. That is the reason for the inclusion of the clause, “…that one has the exclusive right to…”, to the definition of property. That which is referred to in the said clause is its differentia; its genus is the category of existent. (I did not say that property is essentially a product of man’s integrated mental and physical labor, since things such as land, natural resources and even animals can be property that is certainly not of that nature.)

Observe that the definition depends upon a key political concept: the concept of individual rights.(1) This concept is the basis on which the existence of property is founded.

Property cannot exist without individual rights.

Furthermore, property rights are individual rights. The right to one’s life means the right to have one’s own life as property; i.e., the right to keep (sustain) it, to use it and to dispose of it in any way, by any means, for any reason and for any length of time that does not violate the rights of others. The right to free speech means the right to have one’s mind and its natural means of expression (one’s body) as property; i.e., the right to keep it,…

Should you now demand proof for the existence of individual rights, I will refer you to Ayn Rand’s writings. She wrote several essays and even several novels concerning the individual’s rights.

1. Note that we have begun this discussion out of the full context–and if you’re not familiar with Ayn Rand’s theory of ethics, politics and concepts, you may find yourself questioning several points, principles and concepts that I use and others already take for granted (such as individual rights). If you haven’t already done so, I recommend that you read, among others, Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness: a New Concept of Egoism, and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

[One_Shot_Wonder]

Ownership exists if property exists if property rights exist? That sounds very reasonable, given that rights are never about things that don’t exist.

Unfortunately, since I was only asking about ownership to determine whether property existed to determine whether property rights were real, your (incredibly solid) response really only moves the question back to where it came from. B)

[y_feldblum]

TR’s definition of property is not inconsistent with mine.

I’m not sure if the definition depends upon a derivative makes sense: definition of A depends on definition of B; definition of B depends on definition of A. Definition of A then ultimately depends on itself; same with definition of B. So, please clean that up.

[One_Shot_Wonder]

And you said before that non-exclusive claim is the same as no-claim, correct?

Yes.  There is no effective difference, other than the words used in the dictionary (me) definition.

That if a claim isn’t exclusive, it might as well not be there at all?

Bingo.

If that’s the case, in what important way is exclusive claim not the exact same thing as ownership?

Relevancy?  And, in no important way or in any way whatsoever.

The relevance is that if ownership is claim and claim is ownership, then no, sir, you cannot use the concept of claim to validate the concept of ownership.

[One_Shot_Wonder]

<< Mind/reason only operate when a concept called private property is present >>

Wrong. Dead, flat-out wrong. I’ve told you several times why it’s wrong

I don’t believe you have.

It seems foolish to say that no property means no mind and reason.  I assume that you’re referring to the logic in your previous post, “If others had a claim on anything a person produces equal or greater than is own claim, ie public property, the value of the thing is instantly negated; the end being nothing means the middle and the beginning are nothing.”  It seems to me that the utility of a product I create wouldn’t change if I didn’t have a claim on it.

You asked what would happen if someone took the product of my mind and reason away, and suggested that such a thing would negate the value of my mind and reason.

<The value of something> to me has absolutely no bearing on what <that thing’s value is>.

I used sloppy terms, though, and we got off onto this thing about worth. Plus I got called brainwashed a few times, which was neat.

Finally,

Metaphysics has nothing to do with functional differences; you’re thinking of epistemology.

This means that even if our mind and reason could be shown to be producing only valueless things in a propertyless environment, that would not mean that our mind and our reason did not exist in a way that separated us from apes and trees and plankton.

[guest_anonymous]

Ownership exists if property exists if property rights exist?  That sounds very reasonable, given that rights are never about things that don’t exist.

Unfortunately, since I was only asking about ownership to determine whether property existed to determine whether property rights were real, your (incredibly solid) response really only moves the question back to where it came from.  B)

So your question was about the source and validity of property rights? I thought it was the existence of ownership? If you want me to prove the validity of property rights, I can’t do that for you, since it’s such a broad topic and would take quite a long essay if not a whole book–which I assure you has already been written. Furthermore, I am not an expert at this at all–only a student of Objectivism. So again I refer you to Ayn Rand’s writings.

And y_feldblum

When I said “derivative”, I did not meant that it was derived from the definition of property, but from another totally different field and concept. But just to clear up confusion, I’ll “clean it up”.

[One_Shot_Wonder]

So your question was about the source and validity of property rights?  I thought it was the existence of ownership? B)

My question was about the existence of ownership. I wanted to see whether we had a reason to believe that ownership actually existed, or whether it was just a convenient thing to include in our ontology. The fact that I asked it for a reason (no ownership = no property = no property rights) has no real bearing; I just found it odd that you moved right back where I came from.

[DavidV]

In a socio-political economic context, property is anything that one has the exclusive right to keep, to use and to dispose of in any way, by any means, for any reason and for any length of time that does not violate the rights of others.

I don’t like this definition for a number of reasons. But first, I might as well point out that I was the one “Wonder” originally debated, and pointed him to the property thread. However, I quickly realized that the root of his error is not a mistaken view of property or even capitalism, but a mistaken view of concepts and deeply entrenched collectivism. Until he drops his nominalism and utilitarianism (which is very doubtful) any debate on the nature of property is pointless. I would also point out that I haven’t yet read more than one or two essays from CUI, VOS, or ITOE, but that I’ve found the ethical and political philosophy of Objectivism by far the most accessible.

Regarding your definition, it’s both non-essential and overly specific. First, the meaning of property does not differ according to context. Second, property rights may not necessarily be exclusive. Third, exclusivity of property is a non-essential. Fourth, not “anything” may be property. Fifth, the use of property to initiate force goes beyond its definition.

Property rights are not always exclusive because one can have both the complete rights to something, or partial rights: for example, mineral rights, water rights, or air-space rights. Property may even be shared: for example, air-space and right-of-way rights. Sure, within a certain context property rights are exclusive, but ownership does not necessary mean absolute control of any particular object.

Property is also limited to particular entities: material objects and ideas which are limited, can be exclusively assigned to a party, and the property assignment of which may be recorded. For example, words, laws of nature, and commonly-known facts cannot be property. Air may be property on Mars or the Moon (where it can be assigned to particular party) but it cannot be a property on Earth, where we cannot assign X cubic feet of air to any one individual. (There may be exceptions, but you get the point.)

The most important point is that property must be defined by its essentials, not by aspects which follow from those essentials. I like RadCap’s definition (which Wonder mistakenly attributed to Ayn Rand): “Any material element or resource to which mental and physical effort have been applied.”

In other worth, a possession is essentially a value brought forth into a tangible form. As Ayn Rand said, “Every type of productive work involves a combination of mental and physical effort: of thought and of physical action to translate that thought into a material form.” This is the basis of the concept of property: the application of reason to labor in order to create the material and intellectual objects needed to achieve our values.

As an aside, while de jure recognition of property requires a government that recognizes individual (including property) rights, de facto property ownership exists in any human society. Property is such a basic necessity of human life, that human life is virtually impossible without it. Even primitive African tribes and Neanderthals have/had de facto ownership of (for example) their tools, clothes, and hunting/gathering grounds. Property is not merely a social invention, but a pre-condition for any society. The recognition of de jure property-rights on the other hand, is a prerequisite for any civilized, human society.

[y_feldblum]

The relevance is that if ownership is claim and claim is ownership, then no, sir, you cannot use the concept of claim to validate the concept of ownership.

I probably shouldn’t say this, but exhasperated sigh. Here we go again: I defined ownership as exclusive claim, and I defined claim in terms of other things. Therefore, the definition for ownership which I provided is perfectly solid assuming the definition for claim I provided is solid as well.

If you still don’t agree with that, please tell me why.

You asked what would happen if someone took the product of my mind and reason away, and suggested that such a thing would negate the value of my mind and reason. << It seems to me that the utility of a product I create wouldn’t change if I didn’t have a claim on it. >>

Fair enough. However, it would change if nobody or everybody had a claim on it. What I meant by “others” there was people in general.

This means that even if our mind and reason could be shown to be producing only valueless things in a propertyless environment

But it physically cannot be shown to be producing.

GC, good post. Only, I take issue with what you think about exclusivity: one can have exclusive rights to 25% of a company, or exclusive rights to the minerals or water in a certain area.

[JohnGalt]

Newbie here. (I can’t believe nobody had registered as JohnGalt yet.)

It’s my understanding that the purpose here is to convince ‘One Shot Wonder’ that property rights have some basis in reality, that they’re not merely a human convention. (Ownership is the concretization of an abstract, of property rights. Or another way, ownership is the practice or exercise of property rights, requiring a specific owner and specific property. Since ownership depends on property rights, the task is to demonstrate the existence of property rights, or rather their grounding in reality.)

Here’s my attempt at explanation, as simply as possible:

Man is a being of volitional consciousness. He posesses reason and the free will to use it or not. The proper choice, which is to say, proper to man’s nature, is to use the fullest extent of his abilities, to live by his reason. The alternative is life as an animal, acting by perception and instinct on the range of the moment. Of course, reason alone is not sufficient for man’s survival, as the mind has no direct effect on the external world. Man must act on his reason, and reason must guide his action. It is by his own effort, guided by his reason, that man must survive to do so in a manner appropriate to his nature.

Property rights are a requirement of man’s survival in a manner appropriate to his nature. They are not a convenience or a social convention; they are a requirement. In a society where property rights are not recognized, at least implicitly if not explicitly, man is either a parasite or a slave. The parasites live off the effort of others. The slaves have their efforts expropriated by the parasites. (This is not “social fiction”; it is, sadly, the record of much of human history.) This clearly is not survival qua man. It is survival as an animal.

It is man’s nature and his requirements for life appropriate to that nature from which property rights arise, quod erat demonstrandum.

How one attains property is another question. This is where the concepts of value and claim come into the discussion. The O’ist position on what belongs to an individual (the product of his mind and effort) is hardly unique, or even original. It’s been around since at least Adam Smith and John Locke.

[One_Shot_Wonder]

Here we go again: I defined ownership as exclusive claim, and I defined claim in terms of other things.  Therefore, the definition for ownership which I provided is perfectly solid assuming the definition for claim I provided is solid as well.

If you still don’t agree with that, please tell me why.

You asked what would happen if someone took the product of my mind and reason away, and suggested that such a thing would negate the value of my mind and reason.  << It seems to me that the utility of a product I create wouldn’t change if I didn’t have a claim on it. >>

Fair enough.  However, it would change if nobody or everybody had a claim on it.  What I meant by “others” there was people in general.

This means that even if our mind and reason could be shown to be producing only valueless things in a propertyless environment

But it physically cannot be shown to be producing.

You said that a claim was “ability to arbitrary use and disposal”. And of course since claim only comes in two flavors, exclusive and none at all, then we might as well call claim the “exclusive ability to use and disposal”. That’s ownership. It’s like trying to convince me that ghosts exist by assuming that spectres exist and going from there. It’s the same damn thing.

Let’s say that I build an abacus and write some instructions and then just leave it tethered to the ground someplace. You’d say that no one has a claim on it, and thus that the abacus is useless. I’d say that despite the fact that no one has a claim on it, the abacus isn’t useless. The smart-ass answer is, of course, “because an abacus is a tool and a tool implies utility”. The real answer is that anyone can walk up to the thing and do a little math and walk away. It’s useful until somebody breaks it, or until people start fighting over it, or, in short, until someone inevitably ruins it for everybody. Until then, though, it’s a useful tool, and it seems silly to call such a thing valueless.

Don’t get me wrong – I think this is a completely sorry economic system, and one which would very rapidly break down because people are greedy bastards who don’t like to share. If everyone would play nice, it would work wonderfully, but the fact of the matter is that under such a system, the course of action which benefits an individual the most (take stuff) hurts the system. I think it’s vitally important that people believe that they can own things, and feel safe leaving their house knowing that if someone’s taken up residence there when they get home, the police will come throw that person out. All I’m contesting is the idea that the concept of ownership is something other than an invention that keeps the system running (like currency).

Yes, it could not be physically shown to be producing. That’s completely irrelevant, and come to think of it, not strictly true, either. We produce lots of things like languages which are valueless (by your definition) but are incredibly good evidence that we’ve got something going on upstairs.

[One_Shot_Wonder]

Man is a being of volitional consciousness.  He posesses reason and the free will to use it or not.  The proper choice, which is to say, proper to man’s nature, is to use the fullest extent of his abilities, to live by his reason.  The alternative is life as an animal, acting by perception and instinct on the range of the moment.  Of course, reason alone is not sufficient for man’s survival, as the mind has no direct effect on the external world.  Man must act on his reason, and reason must guide his action.  It is by his own effort, guided by his reason, that man must survive to do so in a manner appropriate to his nature.

Fair enough.

Property rights are a requirement of man’s survival in a manner appropriate to his nature.  They are not a convenience or a social convention; they are a requirement.  In a society where property rights are not recognized, at least implicitly if not explicitly, man is either a parasite or a slave.  The parasites live off the effort of others.  The slaves have their efforts expropriated by the parasites.  (This is not “social fiction”; it is, sadly, the record of much of human history.)  This clearly is not survival qua man.  It is survival as an animal.

“Things don’t tend to go well if people don’t think they can own property” is a very poor reason to believe that property exists. Moreover, I don’t think it’s fair to say that the “slaves” aren’t surviving qua man. After all, you’re a slave right now, and you’re probably not doing too badly.

I also think that this is a very western idea. Honest White Folk tend to behave in the way you’re describing, but there are lots of other places in the world that aren’t populated by assholes, and where people really will kick in their share and are able to live collectively.

[y_feldblum]

You said that a claim was “ability to arbitrary use and disposal”. And of course since claim only comes in two flavors, exclusive and none at all, then we might as well call claim the “exclusive ability to use and disposal”. That’s ownership. It’s like trying to convince me that ghosts exist by assuming that spectres exist and going from there. It’s the same damn thing.

I don’t know what you want me to say. You are wrong, and your conception of what I said is completely backwards. Please, reread every time I said, “I think I’ll explain exactly what this concept I made up called exclusive claim is without once referring to the concept ownership … and then because ownership is such a nice small-mouthful word and exclusive claim is such an unwieldy two-word construction, I think I’ll say write in my dictionary: ownership - n. exclusive claim!” It’s like me telling you all about specters, defining exactly what they are and proving that they exist, and then saying ghost is another word for specter!

Let’s say that I build an abacus and write some instructions and then just leave it tethered to the ground someplace. You’d say that no one has a claim on it, and thus that the abacus is useless.

Understandably wrong. If I leave a thing I have exclusive claim to in the ground somewhere - Ie, first come first take - it always has exclusive claim and is always owned. However, if the police do not care whether people steal your tv sets and nobody is allowed to carry handguns to protect their houses, then suddenly tv sets are entirely worthless.

[makemore]

I see that you One Shot Wonder has a definition of property:

‘And of course since claim only comes in two flavors, exclusive and none at all, then we might as well call claim the “exclusive ability to use and disposal”’

I agree that the property right can be defined as:

“exclusive ability to use and disposal”

and thus property will be defined as:

“something that can be exclusivly used and disposed by someone”

These are good definitions since they point at the core of property right, that is exclusive use.

I have studied some Objectivism but Im not claiming to represent it fully, instead I like to see my philosophy as based on Objectivism. But I think Im on the same track as Ayn Rand.

To be curious I would like to know how much you, One Shot Wonder, knows about Objectivism? It would give me an hint on how detailed I should present my arguments.

First of all in the ideas of Objectivism, man acquires his rights by the virtue of his nature. Thus Objectivism in this case is a Natural Rights philosophy. This position is derived from different axioms and if you are not sure on how it is reached I recommend you to study some Objectivist literature, since it is quite time-consuming for me to explain it here.

I will present a short version of it anyway:

Rand establishes early in her philosophy the importance of Life (which is not only to be alive but also to prosper, develop enjoy it and more). That is she sees it as the goal, for every man to strive for, and as such points out the importance of man to be able to his fullest capacity to reach it. The most important thing that man has to rely on to reach this goal is his mind and reason. The mind is crucial since it is what forms our actions.

Since life is the goal and man must act to reach and preserve it, as for example he is required by his nature to produce and consume food. Man must be able to use his mind and reason.

To best explain this is to use examples.

A man who works to sustain his life will do so perhaps by farming our fishing to produce his food. To farm a field or fish in a lake a man will have to use his mind and labour. Lets say a person has decided to get some fish for dinner. To realize his thought he will start making a fishing rod and later go the lake and catch a fish. Once the person has got his fish he will have used his reason, labour, energy and time to get it.

Now if someone comes and takes the fish away from him he will have nullified his reason, labour, energy and time. To demostrate using the equation:

What was:

mind + reason = property

became:

mind + reason = 0

Thus in this scenary the man was unable to get his food, that is he was unable to sustain his life, and if this is repeated against him he will ultimately lose his life. With other words if he can no longer consume what he produces he can no longer use his reason, since the product of his reason may be taken away from him. In such a scenary the person might become forced to steal (as in not retaliate) from other persons to sustain his life, and this is what Rand says is to abbondon Life as an goal since the person is no longer sustaining his life by his own effort but instead by others, and is thus unfit for living.

This also applies if a person would be sowing a field to get food later. If someone would destroy the field for the person the persons property might not be nullified but his labour, energy and time will be and thus also his reason.

This is good examples of the purpose of the Property Right, but one thing that is sometimes missed is that property:

“something that can be exclusivly used and disposed by someone”

not only relates to things around us but also to ourself. We often belive that we have an “right to exclusive use” of ourselfs but fail to grasp that this right is really the Property Right.

With this in mind we can also make another argument for Property Rights. No other person can have more control over our body then we have. That is noone can make our arm move as we can. This could infact be viewed as an evidence for the existence of Property.

Finally one has to understand that Property is not so much about the object but more about the labour, energy and time invested in it by its owner. Lets go back to the scenary of the fishing man that got his fish taken by another person. If they starts to argue about whose the fish is, they wouldnt only argue about who owns the fish but also about who owns the labour done by the fishing man.

[Capitalism_Forever]

Excellent points, makemore!

And also a wonderful combination of screen name and avatar!