rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) (01/16/90)
In article <2818@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
-- I have a counter-question: how many people does it take to
--agree to treat "your" stereo as "yours" in order to make it
--yours? Just you? Ten? Ten million?
-
-The answer is one. AND only one.
-
...
-Social contract - justification of theft by a few by invoking the specter
- of the many. See Divine Right of Kings and Fascism.
This is all well and good, but I'm still waiting for your basis of the
concept of ownership.
If it only takes one person to determine owership, what do you do about
disputes? Based on your concept of ownershipt, who owns the land in
Antarctica? How about the moon? I suppose if I claim ownership of one
of them then that's all there is to it.
I gave a lot of thought to this subject when the "Fred and the dam"
debate started, and as far as I can see, "ownership" means, and only
means "people generally agree on who owns it".
If there is some basis of a concept of ownership that is more basic and
more substantial, I'd like to hear it.
--
Richard H. Graham
University of Pittsburgh - CIS
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edupkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/17/90)
In article <8ZggXmy00W0TM96LF=@andrew.cmu.edu> jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: >I suppose that means you. Why is that so? Why are *you* the one who >gets to decide who has property rights and who doesn't? I, >personally, prefer a more utilitarian approach - if i need to utilize >it, i do so, irregardless of who "owns" it. However, if i am not >using it, i will either "lend" or "give" it away to others who can or >will use it. Also, there is a difference between wanting to use it >and needing to use it. As the above posting shows, communism lives on in the hearts and minds ... I DON'T decide WHO has property rights. That may be the burning issue in your mind, but not mine. I ASSERT that my property is my property and that no one has the right to take it without my permission. ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (01/17/90)
>In article <47ef3a7b.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: >> So to answer Mr. Ronzone's question in detail: How many does he >> need to take the stereo? If he is living in a feudal society and he >> is the Lord of the Manor, then 1 is probably sufficient. If he is >> living in a democracy then he needs however many votes are required >> to pass an "eminent domain" law and make it stick. It may turn out >> that the numbers are not so important as the political connections >> that these people have. If he is living in a "state of nature" than >> the numbers are not as important as the strength or weapons of >> the individual parties. In the US he would need sufficient numbers >> influence law and public opinion. In the USSR perhaps having a >> friend in the NKVD would do. > >Another glorious justification to "might makes right". How is this a "justification" for anything? I am merely describing how many people it requires to take someone's stereo against their will in different legal/ethical systems as the exist in the Real World. Does Mr. Ronzone disagree? Does he live in a different world? Perhaps... > >> And why should I care it it applies to ALL men? It may be rationally >> inconvenient that a certain man should continue to live or be free to >> use his mind. > >A walking want-ad for ex-Securitate personnel ... > >Sieg Heil. While he may lack for ideas or expressions of thought, Mr. Ronzone never lacks for catcalls. It has not yet ocurred to him that a cogent argument counts for more on this newsgroup. >> I have said before that there are NO demonstrable transcendent >> rights. Morality is a function of the culture you're in. > > >So in Germany in the 30's and 40's it was MORAL to kill Jews, the insane, >and anyone declared by the state to be "unfit"? > That's right. By their standards it was OK. But don't forget, by OUR standards it was OK to invade them and stop them and so we did. Good for us (by MY standards). If Mr. Ronzone thinks that the world actually works Some Other Way, he is welcome to present his reasoning to the group for us all to consider and comment on. Personally, I don't think he's up to it. >It was MORAL to treat blacks, Chinese, etc. as subhuman in American >50 years ago? > Again, by the standards of the people doing these things, Yes. By the standards of others, No. That's why the Jim Crow laws and other discriminatory policies were eliminated. The Others (being most of us) won. That's how the Real World actually works. Mr. Ronzone should consider reading some history or stepping away from his terminal for a moment and walking up and down the streets. If Mr. Ronzone thinks that there IS some great, transcendent moral force at work perhaps he can show it to us. But I doubt it. >Sicko ..... Ooooh, brilliant! Such a way with words. Such a deep, insightful grasp of complex issues. Who needs to put together a rational argument when there are insults? My God, why didn't I think of this earlier? I could have neatly disposed of Steve Mason, June Genis, Dave Hudson, et al, not to mention George Bush and Mike Dukakis through the miracle of modern insults! Five little letters and think of all the typing I could have saved. I'm sure I would have had them on the run in seconds..... ---Peter PS. My apologies for lumping my favorite net.adversaries in with certain Demopublicans. I only did it for theatrical effect.
ellis@chips.sri.com (Michael Ellis) (01/17/90)
> Peter Nelson >> Phil Ronzone >>So in Germany in the 30's and 40's it was MORAL to kill Jews, the insane, >>and anyone declared by the state to be "unfit"? > That's right. By their standards it was OK. >>It was MORAL to treat blacks, Chinese, etc. as subhuman in American >>50 years ago? > Again, by the standards of the people doing these things, Yes. Slavery, infanticide, Stalinism, Nazism, all these real world horrors are beyond reason's power to condemn, or so Peter would have us believe. Now I ask, is this a reasonable person speaking? > That's how the Real World actually works.... Your concept of "reason" is not reasonable: it is of negative utility to real human beings in the real world. -michael
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (01/17/90)
ellis@chips.sri.com (Michael Ellis) writes: > > Jon Allen Boone >> Phil Ronone > > >> Of course, this totally justifies what the NAZI's did to the Jews. > >> After all, they had enough poeple. What happened was part of the "social > >> contract". > > >Aha! Name calling! What the Nazi's did to the Jews... > > I certainly didn't think Phil was name calling. He was showing > something very wrong with your position: If rights are and > ought to be whatever the majority at any given point decides, then > there is nothing wrong if a majority votes away all rights and > gives total power to a small elite. Something very much like that > happened in Nazi Germany. Certain rights must be absolutely > unvotable-away. That is the important sense in which rights ought > to be more primordial than government itself. > > -michael You're right. That's why i *don't* believe in democracy. The more people involved, the more likely they are to fuck it up. Rights are not absolutes, in my position. As Crowley put it: Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay. (AL.I.42-3.) Love is the law, love under will. - (AL.I.57.) Democracy is inherrently subject to this kind of erosion of our "basic" rights. It is happening every day here in the Land Of The Free and the Home Of The Brave (tm). Government out to be radically scaled back and (in some areas) done away with altogether. But, if you're going to support somethings, then you should support them wholeheartedly. For an interesting example of how democracy can get fucked up, try playing a little game that Douglas Hoffsteader describes in Metamagical Themas. It can go a long way toward showing you how bad off you could be in America today, especially if you play with the kind of people who are in favor of increased erosion of rights. good luck, iain
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (01/17/90)
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: > In article <8ZggXmy00W0TM96LF=@andrew.cmu.edu> jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: > >I suppose that means you. Why is that so? Why are *you* the one who > >gets to decide who has property rights and who doesn't? I, > >personally, prefer a more utilitarian approach - if i need to utilize > >it, i do so, irregardless of who "owns" it. However, if i am not > >using it, i will either "lend" or "give" it away to others who can or > >will use it. Also, there is a difference between wanting to use it > >and needing to use it. > > > As the above posting shows, communism lives on in the hearts and minds ... Well, if i'm a communist, then get out your gun and shoot me. Better tell everyone that i'm a communist - they wouldn't want to associate with me - after all, i'm against the government so i must be a bad seed, right? Every attempt i've ever seen at communism take away all the "basic" property rights of the individual and gives them to the state. There is a percieved difference between "This belongs to everyone - use it as you will" and "This belongs to the state - you are to do with it what we tell you to do with it." I am not in favor of that at all. Personally, i consider myself an anarchist, but if you want to consider me a communist, go right ahead. > I DON'T decide WHO has property rights. That may be the burning > issue in your mind, but not mine. No, not really. But you do seem to be quite concerned with it. You put a lot of effort into determing that group X (which includes you) has the right to property. I maintain that as you grow and expand your mind (which you may never do) you'll keep doing this, while simply replacing X with a different group. Oh well.... > I ASSERT that my property is my property and that no one has > the right to take it without my permission. And I ASSERT that if i feel that i need to i can take it without your permission, because i ASSERT that you don't have any property rights (excluding, perhaps, your body). Done? Now that we've stopped making assertions, let's see some rationalisations....i mean i can ASSERT anything i damn well please - but it don't mean diddly. > > ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- > Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr > Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." > -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting--------------- You and your dyslexic keyboard.... iain
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) (01/17/90)
In article <2847@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >I DON'T decide WHO has property rights. That may be the burning >issue in your mind, but not mine. > >I ASSERT that my property is my property and that no one has >the right to take it without my permission. So this property right exists simply because YOU assert it? And what if I assert a similar right to the same property? Exactly what are the "rules" used to establish and transfer ownership? Are they constant, or situational? (If I remember right,) in the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy", there was a tribe of people with no concept of ownership of objects (not because they were closet communists, but just because they'd never found need of any). Now let's say you show up, lost in the desert. You're pretty hungry, so you try to trade your watch for some food, knowing, of course, that barter is the universal language. You think you've struck a deal, but in the tribesman's eyes you've shown him an interesting toy and taken some food, which is just fine as everyone takes what they want and works when there's need to work. Now a few more tribesman show up, see you with a bunch of food and begin to help themselves. Asserting your poperty rights over the food you've just "bought", you violently defend your property. Did this happen because: A. Your property rights have been violated. Their cockamamey system of non-ownership isn't binding to you since you haven't been informed and agreed to it. You're just observing the "natural" order of ownership. B. Where you come from, people have contrived a system of ownership over objects. This works just fine there, but now you're here imposing it on people who haven't accepted it. The tribe observes the existence of people and of objects, but hasn't imposed a contrived system of rules on top of it. C. This is an example of a conflict of cultures with different systems. Each system may (or may not) be useful/desirable in the situation of it's origin, but neither is any more "right" than the other. The problem is the conflict of differing systems, not the "rightness" of one and the "wrongness" of the other. D. (Insert your own insightful explanation here.) -- Richard H. Graham University of Pittsburgh - CIS rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu
keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) (01/18/90)
Umm, people? I just started reading alt.individualism again, and I noticed an argument about property. On the one hand some assert that a majority _consensus_ determines property. Some assert the [communist] idea that _need_ determines ownership. A third faction asserts that property simply _is_ [a primary?] The correct approach to this question is: "Who created the property?" It is THIS person who owns it. He (she) may then transfer ownership voluntarily to someone else. This seems to be related to the objectivist/libertarian debate. As the Lians assert that property _is_ [a fundamdental irreducable primary] they also assert that liberty is a fundamental irreducable primary. It only remains for them to find the "proper" philosophy [because it supports their ideas]. This sounds like rationalization...
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (01/18/90)
Phil Ronzone posts... >I DON'T decide WHO has property rights. That may be the burning >issue in your mind, but not mine. >I ASSERT that my property is my property and that no one has >the right to take it without my permission. ^^^^^ In other words, Phil doesn't care WHO has property rights as long as HE has property rights. Actually, I don't really disagree with him on this; in practical terms it is this understanding that results in the social consensus that produces most systems of rights. Nevertheless, when that consensus goes away so do the rights. If Phil was a Jew in NAZI Germany, or a Panamanian under Noriega, or a Panamanian in the line of U.S. fire in the recent invasion, he could "ASSERT" his rights until he was blue in the face and it wouldn't have done him any good. The world has seen lots of common graves filled with people who have asserted their rights in such a manner. Of course, Phil would say that this is wrong. Wrong by his standards or Peter Nelson's? No, absolutely wrong; wrong by universal standards; dead wrong. How does he know this? He won't tell us -- I guess that's just Phil's little secret. ---Peter
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/18/90)
In article <21643@unix.cis.pitt.edu> rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) writes: >This is all well and good, but I'm still waiting for your basis of the >concept of ownership. >... >If there is some basis of a concept of ownership that is more basic and >more substantial, I'd like to hear it. I own all my property. There are three kinds: p0 = my own life p1 = my ideas and thoughts (i.e., Einstein owns E=MC**2) p2 = my tangible derivatives (farm the ground, I own the corn) In many cases of p2, ownership is immediately transferred upon production via prior agreement as per most blue and white collar jobs. ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/18/90)
In article <4813908a.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: >>> And why should I care it it applies to ALL men? It may be rationally >>> inconvenient that a certain man should continue to live or be free to >>> use his mind. >> >>A walking want-ad for ex-Securitate personnel ... >> >>Sieg Heil. > > While he may lack for ideas or expressions of thought, Mr. Ronzone > never lacks for catcalls. It has not yet ocurred to him that a > cogent argument counts for more on this newsgroup. The spectacle of an indivdual posting the "rationally inconvenient" line above is sickening. Who decides the "convenience" of another persons life? It seems the Mr. Nelson is sure he can. >>So in Germany in the 30's and 40's it was MORAL to kill Jews, the insane, >>and anyone declared by the state to be "unfit"? >> > > That's right. By their standards it was OK. > If Mr. Ronzone thinks that the world actually works Some Other Way, > he is welcome to present his reasoning to the group for us all to > consider and comment on. Personally, I don't think he's up to it. I assume by this unimaginative concept the American revolution would have never happened. Peter Nelson to the founding fathers ... "Come guys -- give it up. Live in the real world. There have always been Kings and Divine Right. There always will be. Besides, the Kings has more soldiers than us. Get real." Of course, it is hard to discuss anything with an individual who believes he has the Sole Truth Of The Way The World Works. ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/18/90)
In article <8092@unix.SRI.COM> ellis@chips.sri.com.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > Slavery, infanticide, Stalinism, Nazism, all these real world horrors > are beyond reason's power to condemn, or so Peter would have us believe. Correct. I assert that every human being has the right to their own life (as well as various classes of tangible property). A result of that assertion is that slavery, infanticide, Stalinism, Nazism, murder, etc. is WRONG because it violates that right. It IS an assertion. It is not engraved in rocks, it is not encoded in our genes. But it IS a starting point. If you don't agree, that is YOUR business. If you think it is sort of a right, except when a whole bunch of people decide it isn't, that's your business also (and your problem as well). ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) (01/18/90)
In article <2847@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >In article <8ZggXmy00W0TM96LF=@andrew.cmu.edu> jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: >>I suppose that means you. Why is that so? Why are *you* the one who >>gets to decide who has property rights and who doesn't? I, >>personally, prefer a more utilitarian approach - if i need to utilize >>it, i do so, irregardless of who "owns" it. However, if i am not >>using it, i will either "lend" or "give" it away to others who can or >>will use it. Also, there is a difference between wanting to use it >>and needing to use it. >As the above posting shows, communism lives on in the hearts and minds ... Oh, the horror: somebody puts dire need above property rights in certain circumscribed cses, and for violating the Holy Concept of Property, gets labeled an icky, evil Commie. No need for discussion of tough issues such as the collision of rights. Just stick on a label and walk away. So let's say I DON'T have the right to steal food to save my life when I'm in extremis, or to use a vehicle without permission to get an emergency case to the hospital. Will you fault me for doing so anyway? Is the idea of "rights" (defined in purely propertarian terms) even applicable to moral/ethical issues in these extreme situations? Let's say I HAVE violated a right. What measures should be taken against me? Are you willing to argue that rights as you define them are never to be violated? That it is never right to do so? >I DON'T decide WHO has property rights. That may be the burning >issue in your mind, but not mine. But you DO decide just what they are, it seems. How do we know what IS your proerty, and what is not? If you coerced somebody into handing something over to you, does that make the thing your property? If you purchased a thing that somebody else obtained by coercion, what then? How do we assign original rights to things that have never been owned, e.g., the floor of the sea or Antarctica? >I ASSERT that my property is my property and that no one has >the right to take it without my permission. Bully for you. Asserting things is easy. Does your assertion include a Roger
roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) (01/18/90)
In article <2904@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >In article <21643@unix.cis.pitt.edu> rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) writes: >>This is all well and good, but I'm still waiting for your basis of the >>concept of ownership. >>If there is some basis of a concept of ownership that is more basic and >>more substantial, I'd like to hear it. >I own all my property. There are three kinds: >p0 = my own life Fair enough. What does this mean? To what extent may you defend your ownership? May you violate somebody's property rights (steal his food) to protect your right to your own life? May you restrict another's actions to lessen a THREAT to your own life? Life-as-property is tricky. >p1 = my ideas and thoughts (i.e., Einstein owns E=MC**2) In what sense does/did he own it? Did he have the right to control the use of it to derive other products of thought, e.g., further work in physics? Could this ownership be transferred? What happens when two people have the same idea independently. One idea, two "owners." What does p1 get you, and how does it differ from p0 and p2? Suppose we said that Einstein did NOT own that idea. How would the world be different? How would E's life have been different? >p2 = my tangible derivatives (farm the ground, I own the > corn) Would that be YOUR ground you're farming? How did you get it? From whom? How did the original owner get it? >In many cases of p2, ownership is immediately transferred >upon production via prior agreement as per most blue and >white collar jobs. Hmmm, doesn't seem to work for p1 -- or does the ETH (or wherever) own that formula after all? Now, let's think about coerced transfer of ownership (it happens!) and how to remedy it. Then, let's consider the conditions that make it realistic even to TALK about ownership: you can own something according to the above under any conditions, but it may be a pretty useless concept unless certain other things obtain as well. What are they? Good first step, Phil. Keep going. Roger > > >------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- >Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr >Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." >-----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) (01/18/90)
In article <2905@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >In article <4813908a.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: >>>> And why should I care it it applies to ALL men? It may be rationally >>>> inconvenient that a certain man should continue to live or be free to >>>> use his mind. >>>A walking want-ad for ex-Securitate personnel ... >>>Sieg Heil. >> While he may lack for ideas or expressions of thought, Mr. Ronzone >> never lacks for catcalls. It has not yet ocurred to him that a >> cogent argument counts for more on this newsgroup. >The spectacle of an indivdual posting the "rationally inconvenient" >line above is sickening. Why is it sickening? He's pointing out the way things are! You've snuck "moral" into your definition of "rational." He has not. Can you justify what you've done? Hint: wishing won't make it so. You've made no effort to tell us why your morality is necessarily derived from mere rationality: and if not, what else must obtain before you can derive it. >Who decides the "convenience" of another persons life? You tell me! What if it's inconvenient for you to give a starving man food? A sick man medical aid? If you are telling me that you have no right to allow others to die because it's not convenient for you, then you have just talked yourself into the position counter to the one you proposed a while back, that rights are properties, and all of a sudden the person in extremis has a PROPERTY RIGHT to something that's yours! Or do simple property rights make the issue of convenience irrelevant, and override the issue of right-to-life at all? >It seems the Mr. Nelson is sure he can. Can you decide the relative convenience of resolving conflicting rights one way and another? >>>So in Germany in the 30's and 40's it was MORAL to kill Jews, the insane, >>>and anyone declared by the state to be "unfit"? >> That's right. By their standards it was OK. >> If Mr. Ronzone thinks that the world actually works Some Other Way, >> he is welcome to present his reasoning to the group for us all to >> consider and comment on. Personally, I don't think he's up to it. >I assume by this unimaginative concept the American revolution >would have never happened. Peter Nelson to the founding fathers ... > "Come guys -- give it up. Live in the real world. There have > always been Kings and Divine Right. There always will be. > Besides, the Kings has more soldiers than us. Get real." What has that to do with anything? First of all, the American Revolution was not fought over the Divine Right of Kings. Either come up with some evidence for such an assertion or chuck it. It was fought over economic matters: taxation; and specific political ones: representation. Had Parliament suddenly given the Colonies full voting status, even by Divine Royal Decree, I suspect there would have been no revolution -- at least not for a long while. For that matter, if the Colonies hadn't been taxed unfairly throughout the 1760's and 70's, revolutions wouldn't have attracted many backers at all, Divine Right or no. If the Crown had just let the colonies be, it would have been a trivial issue indeed. Finally, remember that not even most of the British subscribed to George III's revival of Divine Right. It just happened to be fairly easy for them to ignore him. Now, if you're arguing all of a sudden that you are NOT defining rights as they have meaning in the world we live in, but rights as they OUGHT to be in a perfect world, that's a very different matter. But it also carries a different burden: you must first demonstrate what conditions must necessarily obtain before your notion of rights has any "real-world" currency. Your arguments about taxation, which got us into this, are based on just that dissonance: in a perfect world, we don't need taxes, and any attempt to insitute them is wrong. But the world we live in has things like national boundaries, countries at odds with one another, protectionism, etc.; and no country can operate without drawing consequences from these bald facts. And to insist on using ONLY the perfect-world definitions of "rights" and so on is to take a religious stance, very similar to the Christian "All have fallen short of the glory of God" attitude. You can go and decry the entire world as evil, but unless you actually go and do something about making it less evil (aside from complaining bitterly about how rotten things are), it's not really a very interesting point. You tell us you don't vote because the system you'd be participating is evil because it's less than perfect. You are very much like a monk in that attitude. Think about it. Politics is the art of the possible, and the American revolution happened because it was a politically possible move to improve matters of justice, economics, etc. You have shown us no way to get to the utopian condition you describe, in which there is no conflict between absolute property rights and any other necessities, and where taxation is utterly irrelevant, and so on. At least Christians admit that their pie is in the sky. Roger >Of course, it is hard to discuss anything with an individual who >believes he has the Sole Truth Of The Way The World Works. > > > >------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- >Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr >Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." >-----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
ellis@chips.sri.com (Michael Ellis) (01/18/90)
>> Phil Ronzone > Peter Nelson >>I ASSERT that my property is my property and that no one has >>the right to take it without my permission. > In other words, Phil doesn't care WHO has property > rights as long as HE has property rights. Really Peter, Phil didn't say that, and from his past articles, I don't think he meant anything of the sort. From what I can make out from past articles, my guess is he'd support anyone whose rights had been violated. Sometimes your articles are well thought out and clearly presented, even if I disagree with them. But other times your articles contain what sound like cheap and dirty misparaphrasings of other people's ideas that are actually counterproductive to the position you are arguing for. You have done this to me several times. Maybe this isn't intentional on your part, maybe you throw your articles together so quickly you don't have the time to think about what you are responding to. Either way, I am seriously beginning to wonder whether your articles are even worth responding to. Please don't take this criticism as a personal attack. You can clean up your act, Peter. I know you can. > Nevertheless, when that consensus goes away so do the > rights. If Phil was a Jew in NAZI Germany, or a > Panamanian under Noriega, or a Panamanian in the line > of U.S. fire in the recent invasion, he could "ASSERT" > his rights until he was blue in the face and it wouldn't > have done him any good. The world has seen lots of common > graves filled with people who have asserted their rights > in such a manner. You really must have contempt for the readers of this group if you think you're arguing against a position anyone here holds. Of course speech acts don't in themselves have kinds of powers you are pretending Phil attributes to them. > Of course, Phil would say that this is wrong. Wrong by > his standards or Peter Nelson's? No, absolutely wrong; > wrong by universal standards; dead wrong. How does he > know this? He won't tell us -- I guess that's just > Phil's little secret. The horror of the Jewish holocaust is hardly any kind of demonstration that rights don't exist. It is a demonstration of what happens when rights are not protected. Nazism is the best real world example you could have chosen to show what happens when people do not take direct and practical action to fight against violations of universal human rights, rights which transcend the consensus of any particular government. -michael
rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) (01/18/90)
In article <2904@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >I own all my property. There are three kinds: > >p0 = my own life >p1 = my ideas and thoughts (i.e., Einstein owns E=MC**2) >p2 = my tangible derivatives (farm the ground, I own the > corn) > >In many cases of p2, ownership is immediately transferred >upon production via prior agreement as per most blue and >white collar jobs. (I'm willing to concede on any intangibles, I'm only referring to physical property.) This is just a summary of your rules concerning ownership. Maybe you didn't understand my question, so I'll try to rephrase it. As far as I can see, given the existence of people and objects, the people are bound to invent some system of social conventions concerning their behavior with respect to those objects. One example of this is the "Phil Rozone Property System" which naturally is roughly the same as the system that everyone else in western culture observes. Reading your articles, though, gives me the impression that you believe that "ownership" is some kind of basic quantity that trascends culture, government, and social and cultural convention. You speak as if "I own x" is an absolute, and is in accordance with some universal law. Again, as far as I can see, the statement "I own these shoes" means "these shoes meet the qualifications set down by my society and myself under our system of ownership". If the statement has a more significant meaning, I'd like to know what it is. Also, based on what you've said about ownership so far, I'd expect that you'd have trouble with the idea that anyone around you owns anything, since it all comes from natural resoures that were stolen from their rightful owners at one point or another. If you buy from a thief, do you own it or not? Indirectly, practically everything you and I own has come to us from some theif. -- Richard H. Graham University of Pittsburgh - CIS rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (01/19/90)
Miceal Ellis posts... >>>So in Germany in the 30's and 40's it was MORAL to kill Jews, the insane, >>>and anyone declared by the state to be "unfit"? > >> That's right. By their standards it was OK. > >>>It was MORAL to treat blacks, Chinese, etc. as subhuman in American >>>50 years ago? > >> Again, by the standards of the people doing these things, Yes. > > Slavery, infanticide, Stalinism, Nazism, all these real world horrors > are beyond reason's power to condemn, or so Peter would have us believe. I didn't say it was beyond "reason's power". I said that I am aware of no moral philosophy that has the ability to do so with any intellectual rigor. The original subject, readers will recall, was Objectivism. My point was that Objectivism does not *derive* its ethical values so much as inject them. *AS INDIVIDUALS* we all have the power to condemn the actions of others but we have to remember that other people have different moral values which may cause them to condemn us. If Mr. Ellis thinks that he can use reason to derive a set of moral values that would universally condemn the abovementioned horrors, he is welcome to try and do so. > > Now I ask, is this a reasonable person speaking? > >> That's how the Real World actually works.... > > Your concept of "reason" is not reasonable: it is of negative > utility to real human beings in the real world. The question is whether I am accurately describing the World As It Is. Does Mr. Ellis deny that the NAZIs and others had different moral values than us? Not if I understand him correctly. Instead, he seems to be acknowledging the differences but saying that it is possible to demonstrate in a rigorous manner that one value system is "right" and another is "wrong". Subsumed under this we must assume is some definition of "right" and "wrong" that is not unique to just one of those value systems, since the result of that would be circular reasoning. Mr. Ellis is beginning to sink to Mr. Ronzone's level of attacking *me* rather than putting together his own set of alternative ideas. ---Peter
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (01/19/90)
keith@pawl.rpi.edu (Keith D. Weiner) posts... >Umm, people? I just started reading alt.individualism again, and I noticed >an argument about property. >The correct approach to this question is: "Who created the property?" It is >THIS person who owns it. He (she) may then transfer ownership voluntarily >to someone else. This is just an assertion. How does Mr. Weiner propose to demonstrate the truth of it? I propose, as I have all along, that the Real World is the ultimate arbiter of all truth. And in the Real World your "right" to a piece of property is a complex matter based on custom, law, and your immediate resources and ability to use those resources to successfully defend your property rights. ---Peter
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/19/90)
In article <48176d79.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > >Phil Ronzone posts... > >>I DON'T decide WHO has property rights. That may be the burning >>issue in your mind, but not mine. > >>I ASSERT that my property is my property and that no one has >>the right to take it without my permission. > ^^^^^ > > In other words, Phil doesn't care WHO has property > rights as long as HE has property rights. Actually, > I don't really disagree with him on this; in practical > terms it is this understanding that results in the social > consensus that produces most systems of rights. Look Mr. Nelson, I apologize for not be able to use of less than one syllable to explain things even more simply for you, but try and follow this, O.K.? Read the above REAL carefully now, O.K.? See how I state that I do not decide who has property rights? That would be immoral -- because other people have property rights no matter what I decide. Your "in other words" was a fallacious conclusion. I know you think that mob rule is fine and that the NAZI's were O.K. in doing what they did because there were more of them than the Jews, but I don't. Don't try to put words in other peoples mouths. It's not considered a class act ... ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/19/90)
In article <13022@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes: >So let's say I DON'T have the right to steal food to save my life when >I'm in extremis, or to use a vehicle without permission to get an >emergency case to the hospital. > >Will you fault me for doing so anyway? Congratulations! The first small step to maybe understanding what it is about. No, I wouldn't fault you. I'd expect you to make recompense where needed. I am morally allowed to use whatever force is necessary to prevent you from violating my property, if I so desire. If you needed by car to get to the hospital, sure, I'd lend it to you. If you "borrowed" it without my permission, I'd understand. If you wanted to all the food I had because you were starving, I'd help out. If you wanted all my food all the time, you'd better be prepared to die. Your NEED is NO CLAIM on anybody else! Even if your life depended on it! A poor starving wretch in India could live 20-40 years longer, if that person could have half my yearly salary each year. Buying imporved food (or even just the food), better (or any) medical service, housing, clothing, ... If you took ALL my $$$, maybe 2 or 3 people could live where they otherwise die. Or, maybe if we just took all my $$$ and gave to the poor in America, maybe we could add 10 years to the lives of a dozen homeless. And so on. I wasn't born rich. Too bad. I wasn't born extremely poor. Thank [local gods name here]. I need or want things. You need or want things. That does NOT give us a claim on anybody else. ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/19/90)
In article <13024@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes: >>I own all my property. There are three kinds: > >>p0 = my own life > >Fair enough. What does this mean? To what extent may you defend your >ownership? May you violate somebody's property rights (steal his food) >to protect your right to your own life? You may not initiate force. No, you can't steal somebody elses food. LIFEBOAT case: you've had a boating accident. You are in the water without a life jacket. You are holding a Stinger missile. You notice a jet plane overhead. You figure if you shoot the jet down, you can get something to hang on to, maybe even a life jacket, from the debris. Q: May you shoot the jet down? A: NO. >May you restrict another's actions to lessen a THREAT to your own life? Define threat. Imminent objective initiation of force? yes. >Life-as-property is tricky. No, I don't thinks so. >>p1 = my ideas and thoughts (i.e., Einstein owns E=MC**2) > >In what sense does/did he own it? Did he have the right to control the >use of it to derive other products of thought, e.g., further work in >physics? It is his. Yes. >Could this ownership be transferred? Yes. >What happens when two people have the same idea independently. One >idea, two "owners." What does p1 get you, and how does it differ from >p0 and p2? They both own it. >Suppose we said that Einstein did NOT own that idea. How would the >world be different? How would E's life have been different? I don't know. >>p2 = my tangible derivatives (farm the ground, I own the >> corn) > >Would that be YOUR ground you're farming? How did you get it? From >whom? How did the original owner get it? Land is NOT a derivitive. I can't own it. I can own all the improvements. I can rent the "land" (it's improvements) from another. The act of discovery is an improvement, whether it is an idea or land. >>In many cases of p2, ownership is immediately transferred >>upon production via prior agreement as per most blue and >>white collar jobs. > >Hmmm, doesn't seem to work for p1 -- or does the ETH (or wherever) own >that formula after all? I don't what you are mumbling about. >Now, let's think about coerced transfer of ownership (it happens!) and >how to remedy it. > >Then, let's consider the conditions that make it realistic even to TALK >about ownership: you can own something according to the above under any >conditions, but it may be a pretty useless concept unless certain other >things obtain as well. What are they? There is no such thing as coerced transfer of ownership. If someone steals your car, do they own it? Do YOU own anything, Mr. Lustig? Do you even FEEL that maybe you own something? No? Excuse me, what's your address??? :-) :-) ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/19/90)
In article <13028@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes: >Why is it sickening? He's pointing out the way things are! You've >snuck "moral" into your definition of "rational." He has not. Can you >justify what you've done? Auschitwz in 1945 was sickening. And that was "the things were". Are you implying that whatever happens is O.K.? >>Who decides the "convenience" of another persons life? This was an obvious rhetorical question. Sorry you missed it. No one can morally decide the "convenience" of life. >Or do simple property rights make the issue of convenience irrelevant, >and override the issue of right-to-life at all? There is NO right to life. I HAVE a right to my own life. And you to yours. What RIGHT does a drowning man have? A rock climber whose belay just failed? Someone who has no food? I.e., I can decide to do with my life as I will (barring coercion unto others). But a meteorite or the Securitate can end it at random. We can't do much about meteors, BUT we sure can do something about the Securitate's of the world. >Can you decide the relative convenience of resolving conflicting rights >one way and another? Yeah -- just ask "whose property is it". >First of all, the American Revolution was not fought over the Divine >Right of Kings. Either come up with some evidence for such an assertion >or chuck it. > >It was fought over economic matters: taxation; and specific political >ones: representation. Had Parliament suddenly given the Colonies full >voting status, even by Divine Royal Decree, I suspect there would have >been no revolution -- at least not for a long while. Eh? So who was the King after we won? WHAT! There was no King? Well, who ruled over the people? WHAT! You mean that they say that governments are instituted FOR the people, and that taxes are only FOR the people!!! >You tell us you don't vote because the system you'd be participating is >evil because it's less than perfect. > >You are very much like a monk in that attitude. Think about it. Eh? What are you going on about perfect for? I never said or implied anything about perfection. I don't vote because it is immoral. It is immoral because voting involves coercion. If you don't think coercion is involved, let's make taxes voluntary or remove any and all penalties for tax evasion. I don't do things I consider immoral. Do you? ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
tma@osc.COM (Tim Atkins) (01/19/90)
Peter writes: > Of course, Phil would say that this is wrong. Wrong by > his standards or Peter Nelson's? No, absolutely wrong; > wrong by universal standards; dead wrong. How does he > know this? He won't tell us -- I guess that's just > Phil's little secret. > > ---Peter I and several others have attempted to show how rights can be logical derived. You insist on keeping your totally nihilistic, relativistic views of almost any moral content with (IMHO) little rational reason for rejecting the theories and partial theories presented here. I will not bang my head against this wall of yours any longer. It shows itself for the meaningless monolith that it is. - Tim
byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder) (01/19/90)
In article <1990Jan13.090428.25775@agate.berkeley.edu>, gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) writes: > In article <2356@odin.SGI.COM>, pkr@maddog (Phil Ronzone) writes: > >I say it does not matter of 1 person or 1,000,000 people want to steal > >my stereo. It is theft if I am unwilling. > >Answer the question of plead the fifth!!!! :-) > I have a counter-question: how many people does it take to > agree to treat "your" stereo as "yours" in order to make it > yours? Just you? Ten? Ten million? It depends on how it became "yours". I can think of a few: If you bought it from a someone else (like the owner of the stereo store) all it takes is the agreement of the previous owner (and he can't change his mind either). If it was "found" in a natural state and nobody else could be located with a counter-claim (for example if it was floating in the ocean with no address label and an honest effort was made to find the owner. If you built the stereo from parts you owned (acquired through some valid means). If someone gave it to you as a gift (actually, this is like a sale but with a price of zero). > It became "your" stereo not in a state of nature, but in a > civil state which guarantees property rights and prints currency. That's a description of the circumstances, not the method. The government (if it's working properly) ensures your property and other rights. You had the rights before, the government just makes sure that they are not violated (again, if it is doing it's job). > If you want to base your right to "your" stereo not on a social > contract, but on the state of nature, the answer to your question > is easy. If enough people want to take "your" stereo, then they > do. If enough people want to kill me they will probably do that too, but does that mean that I have no right to live? Is murder unjust when practiced by one person but just when done by a mob? You seem to confuse policy (which can be just or not) and justice (which is just by definition). Would you agree with the statement that "Everything the majority decides is JUST no matter what it decides."? How about "Evil committed by a majority is not evil?". If this is the case, you would have to approve of all kinds of moral atrocities of history. Presumably you would not object to the imposition of such atrocities in the future either right? Why should I not be afraid of your moral views? > Property is socially defined. It is part of the social > contract. Your idea that you have an absolute property right > which you have not earned and cannot defend is repugnant and > silly. Who said that the property was not earned? I would assume that Phil worked for the money to buy that stereo. Given my distillation of the moral principles behind your view, isn't that really the repugnant (because it advocates any evil imposed by the majority) and silly (because it would assign ownership on a basis other than the reasonable ones (trade, labor, or discovery) wouldn't such a distribution be a bit silly?). Brian Yoder -- -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>- | Brian Yoder | answers *byoder(); | | uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers | -<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (01/19/90)
In article <524@smcnet.UUCP>, byoder@smcnet (Brian Yoder) writes: >> It became "your" stereo not in a state of nature, but in a >> civil state which guarantees property rights and prints currency. >That's a description of the circumstances, not the method. The government >(if it's working properly) ensures your property and other rights. It also (if it is working properly) helps to *define* your property rights. It must do so, in order to insure them. We have many real-life examples of where government goes overboard and tramples on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But if it is working properly, it should be finding some sort of tolerable accomodation of the various competing interests and desires of its citizens which also suffices to let Phil Ronzone buy and keep his stereo. But I don't think there is a single magic formula which tells us always how this accomodation is achieved. >> If you want to base your right to "your" stereo not on a social >> contract, but on the state of nature, the answer to your question >> is easy. If enough people want to take "your" stereo, then they >> do. >If enough people want to kill me they will probably do that too, but >does that mean that I have no right to live? Again, *if* you based your right to live solely on your personal strength in a state of nature, then life is nasty, brutish and short according to Hobbes. But it seems clear that you *don't* do so, so the question is moot. >Is murder unjust when practiced by one person but just when done >by a mob? Is capital punishment unjust? >Would you agree with the statement that "Everything the majority >decides is JUST no matter what it decides."? No. My objection was not to the notion that individuals or minorities have rights, but to the idea that human beings can be treated as atomic units without reference to a social order, and that we walk around with innately defined property rights which inhere in us solely as individuals. "Man is a social animal" and all that. >Who said that the property was not earned? Who said it was? A common assumption on this group that "I earned every penny, and I should be able to keep it and not pay taxes". But the interlocking net of agreements making up the social orders decrees that you shall get such and such an amount. Your right is a *contractual* right. >I would assume that Phil worked for the money to buy that stereo. Sure. Did he work for the right not to pay taxes? -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "I am quite prepared to prove in court that I am neither stupid nor insane." quoted from ONE FOR THE BOOKS, the authorized biography of Captain Carnage.
roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) (01/20/90)
In article <2947@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >In article <13024@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes: >>>I own all my property. There are three kinds: >>>p0 = my own life >>Fair enough. What does this mean? To what extent may you defend your >>ownership? May you violate somebody's property rights (steal his food) >>to protect your right to your own life? >You may not initiate force. No, you can't steal somebody elses food. Funny, I recall a posting the other day where you said I could appropriate property if I made due compensation. Seems to me, if the decision is mine, then your property right is NOT absolute. That may not be stealing, but is does involve relieving you of some of your control over your property. >LIFEBOAT case: you've had a boating accident. You are in the water >without a life jacket. You are holding a Stinger missile. You notice >a jet plane overhead. You figure if you shoot the jet down, you >can get something to hang on to, maybe even a life jacket, from the >debris. Q: May you shoot the jet down? A: NO. Q: Can I have your second parachute, even if you don't want to give it to me? >>May you restrict another's actions to lessen a THREAT to your own life? >Define threat. Imminent objective initiation of force? yes. Example: neighbor has obvious fire hazard in home. Fire in his house makes fire in mine very likely (happens in cities!). What should I do? Hazard on HIS property endangers me and my property. >>Life-as-property is tricky. >No, I don't thinks so. OK: it's not tricky, just wrong. I've described several collisions between life-rights nad property rights. Your rules seem unreasonable at the very least. >>>p1 = my ideas and thoughts (i.e., Einstein owns E=MC**2) >>In what sense does/did he own it? Did he have the right to control the >>use of it to derive other products of thought, e.g., further work in >>physics? >It is his. Yes. In what case is this anything other than a useless point? Once he's told the world about it, say, in a publication, may nobody use it as a basis for their own thought? In what sense can he control it? If he doesn't tell anyone, who cares whether it's his or not? How can we tell? >>Suppose we said that Einstein did NOT own that idea. How would the >>world be different? How would E's life have been different? >I don't know. Can you IMAGINE things being any different at all? An example? >>>p2 = my tangible derivatives (farm the ground, I own the >>> corn) >>Would that be YOUR ground you're farming? How did you get it? From >>whom? How did the original owner get it? >Land is NOT a derivitive. I can't own it. I can own all the improvements. >I can rent the "land" (it's improvements) from another. The act of >discovery is an improvement, whether it is an idea or land. And a very convenient one, certainly wrt the "discovery" we did on land that others had discovered long before us. Suppose I discover some land (will an aerial photo of Earth do? 8-). How do I demonstrate my claim to make OTHER improvements? >>>In many cases of p2, ownership is immediately transferred >>>upon production via prior agreement as per most blue and >>>white collar jobs. >>Hmmm, doesn't seem to work for p1 -- or does the ETH (or wherever) own >>that formula after all? >I don't what you are mumbling about. Great. He writes sentences without verbs, and accuses ME of mumbling. The Eidgenoessische technische Hochschule, where Einstein studied (and taught?) is what I was talking about. That and the formula you cited earlier. >>Now, let's think about coerced transfer of ownership (it happens!) and >>how to remedy it. >>Then, let's consider the conditions that make it realistic even to TALK >>about ownership: you can own something according to the above under any >>conditions, but it may be a pretty useless concept unless certain other >>things obtain as well. What are they? >There is no such thing as coerced transfer of ownership. If someone >steals your car, do they own it? No. Do the Indians own Maine? >Do YOU own anything, Mr. Lustig? Do you even FEEL that maybe you own something? >No? Excuse me, what's your address??? :-) :-) Yes, of course I own things. But I don't have the same idea of "own" that you do; actually, I still don't know just what you MEAN by "own." Property is a relationship between people, not a relationship of a person to a thing. It exists with reference to things; but the precise meaning, and limits, of ownership, ESPECIALLY wrt real property, are big problems. And your fudge about not owning land is pointless, because we certainly act as though land were indeed owned in some sense. (Also, tell me about making improvements to air rights, or to the sea. What are these like?) What is the difference between owning land and owning its discovery -- in practical terms? Roger
roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) (01/20/90)
In article <2946@odin.SGI.COM> pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >In article <13022@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes: >>So let's say I DON'T have the right to steal food to save my life when >>I'm in extremis, or to use a vehicle without permission to get an >>emergency case to the hospital. >>Will you fault me for doing so anyway? >Congratulations! The first small step to maybe understanding what it is about. I don't think so. I'm waiting for YOU to acknowledge a right to life. >No, I wouldn't fault you. I'd expect you to make recompense where needed. >I am morally allowed to use whatever force is necessary to prevent you >from violating my property, if I so desire. If you needed by car >to get to the hospital, sure, I'd lend it to you. If you "borrowed" it >without my permission, I'd understand. Bully for you. What if your mindset were different? Do you r property rights supersede my right to life? >If you wanted to all the food I had because you were starving, I'd >help out. If you wanted all my food all the time, you'd better be >prepared to die. So? >Your NEED is NO CLAIM on anybody else! Even my need to live? Even when the need is specifically and uniquely remediable? >Even if your life depended on it! >A poor starving wretch in India could live 20-40 years longer, if that person >could have half my yearly salary each year. Buying imporved food (or even >just the food), better (or any) medical service, housing, clothing, ... >If you took ALL my $$$, maybe 2 or 3 people could live where they otherwise >die. >Or, maybe if we just took all my $$$ and gave to the poor in America, maybe >we could add 10 years to the lives of a dozen homeless. >And so on. >I wasn't born rich. Too bad. >I wasn't born extremely poor. Thank [local gods name here]. >I need or want things. You need or want things. That does NOT give us a >claim on anybody else. I'm not making a claim on you. Only on some minimal amount of your property and your assistance. Tell me: "rights" in the vacuum can be dealt with this way. How do you suppose there can be any realistic IMPLEMENTATION of rights if we do not protect those of others, not least their right to life? If you do not protect the rights of those less able to do so than you, then rights in general -- AS IMPLEMENTED -- are everywhere jeopardized. How rational an animal are you if you look out for your rights alone? Roger
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/20/90)
In article <21697@unix.cis.pitt.edu> rhg2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Rich Graham) writes: >Reading your articles, though, gives me the impression that you believe >that "ownership" is some kind of basic quantity that trascends culture, >government, and social and cultural convention. You speak as if "I own >x" is an absolute, and is in accordance with some universal law. I do take it as an absolute. There are hypothesis that tie it to some natural laws, but I haven't accepted them yet. It is an absolute in the same way that we assert 1+1 is 2. 1+1 = 2 is NOT a natural law. And consider the implications of not being an absolute. I.e., it "changes". WHO decides the change? And what is THEIR justification? >Again, as far as I can see, the statement "I own these shoes" means >"these shoes meet the qualifications set down by my society and myself >under our system of ownership". If the statement has a more significant >meaning, I'd like to know what it is. No. Ownership is strictly individualistic. >Also, based on what you've said about ownership so far, I'd expect that >you'd have trouble with the idea that anyone around you owns anything, >since it all comes from natural resoures that were stolen from their >rightful owners at one point or another. If you buy from a thief, do >you own it or not? Indirectly, practically everything you and I own >has come to us from some theif. No. I no know of no system of infinite regressive justice. After all, the American Indians wipe out a previous set of tribes that migrated across the Bering straight, and so on and so on. Like law and order coming to a Western time in the Old West, when you bring order it is not always possible to provide regressive justice. But from that point on, one can have justice. ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------
pkr@maddog.sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (01/20/90)
In article <481c5419.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) writes: > Does Mr. Ellis deny that the NAZIs and others had different moral values > than us? The NAZI's had NO moral values -- they acted essentially as animals that walked on two legs. They were not rational in the main. Only rational men have moral values. ------Me and my dyslexic keyboard---------------------------------------------- Phil Ronzone Manager Secure UNIX pkr@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!pkr Silicon Graphics, Inc. "I never vote, it only encourages 'em ..." -----In honor of Minas, no spell checker was run on this posting---------------