Topic of the thread — justifying private ownership for waterways
Justification offered:
Is water scarce? In other words, is it infinite? If not - and it isn’t - then it must be economized[for the people]. How are things best economized[for the people]? Private ownership and distribution. Simple as that.
Translation:
Private ownership is justified for waterways because it is the method that can best economize a limited resource for the public and give the best result to the people, the collective.
Translation:
The system that can best economize a scarce resource for the public and produce the most social net gain in wealth justifies its existence. Private ownership can best economize a scarce resource in this case of waterways for the people, therefore it is justified.
My post:
That’s wrong.
My reading skills are non-existent? So what is this, am I seeing different words on my monitor other than the ones appearing on yours Jake?
VECT: What is “best”, like what is “practical”, is determined by what is moral.
Yes, that’s how the “best” SHOULD be defined. But the “should” doesn’t magically prevent people to define it the wrong way in their argument, by mistake or intentional.
Other people live by a morality of utilitarianism or pragmatism, so their notion of what is best or practical is different from ours. Your claim that Devil’s Advocate’s use of “best” means “best for the collective” is dropping the context of the Objectivist moral system.
Been an Objectivist doesn’t make you immune from making mistakes. Devil’s Advocate made one in his post, I pointed it out, and somehow people want to deny that fact by the incredulous method of taking out the single term “private ownership” from his post and dropping every other word he’s written. How’s that for context dropping huh?
Devil’s Advocate made [a mistake] in his post, I pointed it out
Where? You contrived a mistake where there wasn’t one. I would have called him on it if he had made one, but he didn’t.
Actually, the whole thing is ambiguous - it can be read either way. So you would have to ask DA to clarify what he meant by his statement. Problem solved.
There is a mistake if the implication of the [people] stands. Arguing for Capitalism on altruistic ground is a common mistake, one that I have committed myself in the past, so I know it well. You didn’t call out on him because you missed it.
And sure, there is a small room to change the [people] to the [individual] in Devil’s post, which is the reason I asked “Economized, for who?” in my very first post.
But guess what? Jake comes right below me and answers the [people] himself, then proceeds to drop context and result in the drama you see now.
Private ownership is justified for waterways because it is the method that can best economize a limited resource for the public and give the best result to the people, the collective.
Again, your interpretation of the English language betrays your ignorance of its finer details. It is only your mistaken belief that “the People” means a single unit, the collective, in the sense philosophers like Marx defined “the collective”. In reality, “the People” has been used to mean exactly the object of Political Science in general, the collection of individuals who occupy a given territory, for centuries before Marx.
If you knew for instance what this is from, I wouldn’t have to explain what “the people” means:
_ “…It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” _
I would suggest more questions, and less rush to correct people, if it’s unclear know what the words used mean. Though that’s not really an excuse, my posts gave enough explanation where an honest reader wouldn’t make the mistake of thinking I’m a Marxist. You’re not an honest reader, you’re a troll looking to argue semantics. Look some place else.
It doesn’t make a difference whether “the People” you wrote was meant to be the collective or a collection of individuals, because both terms denotes or includes entity other than oneself, that others’ welfare or values have a claim on the resources he is economizing.
The “by the people, for the people” is valid when used in Lincoln’s context because he’s talking about the formation of a government , that the government should be an entity created by the collection of individuals, and be proper to every single one of them, proper to both an individual himself and every other individuals. What we are talking about is economizing limited resources , it’s a completely separate context and if you use “by the people, for the people” in this context, it would translate to:
-Private ownership is justified because it is the method that can best economize a limited resource by the people for the people.
That would be by the people for themselves and every other individuals.
Private ownership is justified because it is the system that best allows an individual to economize a limited resource for himself (or individuals for themselves).
“Economized” is a verb that denotes an entity that acts and an entity that it acts upon. The entity that can fill the actor spot is the individual, or individuals/people. But the only entity that can fill the receiving side is either himself or themselves, any other term, like “the People” automatically includes someone other than an individual’s self.
The only right answer you could have given to my question of “Economized, for who?” was “for himself” or “by the people for themselves”. Although now I can see why you made that mistake as you did.
I didn’t make any mistake. Ownership of anything requires a legal framework, set up by the government, for the people. That’s what Devil meant by economizing, that’s what I said, that’s what Lincoln said, and that’s what you’re trolling on, because you’re clueless and and ass on top of it.
I didn’t make any mistake. Ownership of anything requires a legal framework, set up by the government, for the people. That’s what Devil meant by economizing, that’s what I said, that’s what Lincoln said
What does the fact that ownership of anything requires a legal framework have to do with what we are discussing? So you make a legal framework for private ownership, does that somehow automatically provide a justification for private ownership? And what the hell does this fact have to do with any essentials of Devil’s post? Of what you have posted?
You are saying I am been an ass. I am, and this is the reason among others why. You start pulling out facts and make no direct connection to what’s been discussed, and you do it with an attitude of superiority complex as if by pulling out none connecting facts somehow automatically proves your point. Among others you have misinterpreted to a large margin certain essential points that I made very clearly, and even put word in my mouth for things I didn’t say. Whether these acts are result of irrational intentions or incompetence, I am fully in my right to be a bit pissed.
And you say I am a troll? If this were any other forum I would have refused to waste my time defending against such irrationality posts ago. The kind of trolling you have accomplished in the past page is much greater than I could ever hope for.