Political Crossfire Forums

Nathyn · Joined: 25 Sep 2005 Posts: 7341 Location: The Great Satan

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: I'm sure you could think of some better examples where ethical idealism contradicts with pragmatic, assuming you're a moderate Libertarian.
Be careful when you assume, because I am not a libertarian.
You being a Libertarian had nothing to do with an argument. My point is that ethical implications come before pragmatic implications. I used Libertarianism as an example. For Libertarians, government, in any form, is an inherently unjust institution. Minarchism is the ideal or the most ethical; anarchism is the ideal. Instead, minarchism is the pragmatic alternative.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: Re-read what you just quoted.

I did, my question is why should merit determine ownership?
I didn't say merit should determine ownership.

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nathyn wrote: Out of what? Where did he get the tools to make something? Did he have ownership of them and if so, how?
He bought the tools/materials.
OK, you're talking in circles here... If I ask, "How did the tools salesman get ownership of the tools he sold?" are you going to say, "He bought them"? And if I ask, "How did the person he bought them from get ownership of the tools he sold to the tool salesman who sold them to the salesman that sold them to you?" are you going to say, "He bought them"?

You seem to be suggesting that products aren't produced from nature, but rather, they just come from an infinite array of buyers and sellers, who get them from other buyers and sellers, and so on and so forth.

Originally, there was one person who took from nature to manufacture something. Now, if you cannot reasonably justify anyone's ownership of natural resources, how can you therefore justify his ownership of manufactured goods? He had no right to charge anyone for his goods. And, on that basis, the entire chain of ownership is illegitimate, as the items originally sold were not legitimately owned.

As Rothbard said, if you can't own natural resources, you can't own the goods produced from them. But rather than using this as a circular argument to support property rights, it logically follows that property rights cannot be upheld.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2409

LostSoul3412 wrote: RueTheDay wrote: That depends on the object in question. What gave you the EXCLUSIVE right to use the object in the first place?

I bought it.

Slaveowners "bought" slaves. Does that make them their legitimate property? People buy stolen artwork from fences. Does that make the artwork their legitimate property? The act of paying for something cannot possibly be sufficient to bestow a legitimate property right.

The Impeacher · Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Posts: 2928 Location: Everywhere

sad to see Nozick poison another mind about Locke.... :roll:

Nathyn, you've confused ownership versus the proviso. If you have no right to property, how can you ever justify it?

Roy L · Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 1819

LostSoul3412 wrote: If no one can own the land, then how can anyone have the right to build/own anything upon it? If no one can own the ocean, how can anyone have the right to own a boat that floats upon it? If no one can own the atmosphere, how can anyone have the right to own anything that sits under it?

Roy L · Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 1819

LostSoul3412 wrote: RueTheDay wrote: You don't need to "own" something in order to "use" it.

If I don't "own" it, what prevents others from "using" it?
The same thing that prevents others from using a car, house, etc. that you rent and use but do not own.

Roy L · Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 1819

LostSoul3412 wrote:
Nathyn wrote: And what gave the salesman the exclusive right to charge you for it?

He made it.
Did the land's seller make it?

Ka-boom.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

RueTheDay wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: RueTheDay wrote: That depends on the object in question. What gave you the EXCLUSIVE right to use the object in the first place?

I bought it.

Slaveowners "bought" slaves. Does that make them their legitimate property? People buy stolen artwork from fences. Does that make the artwork their legitimate property? The act of paying for something cannot possibly be sufficient to bestow a legitimate property right.

You're equating criminal activity with legitimate trade. That's ridiculous. Western society has determined that peaceful trade is the method that citizens must use to acquire property ownership and status in society, rather than force of arms. In our society, reverting to force of arms to acquire these things is defined as criminal activity.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Logical fallacy.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

Nathyn wrote: My point is that ethical implications come before pragmatic implications.

Not at all. Pragmatic goals should always come first, and then determine the ethics of such goals. Ethics are often subjective, and therefore irrelevant in the scope of society. However, all philosophies should be built around a goal in mind. If there is no goal, there is no point.

Nathyn wrote: OK, you're talking in circles here... If I ask, "How did the tools salesman get ownership of the tools he sold?" are you going to say, "He bought them"? And if I ask, "How did the person he bought them from get ownership of the tools he sold to the tool salesman who sold them to the salesman that sold them to you?" are you going to say, "He bought them"?

Seems pretty liner to me...

Nathyn wrote: You seem to be suggesting that products aren't produced from nature, but rather, they just come from an infinite array of buyers and sellers, who get them from other buyers and sellers, and so on and so forth.

No, ultimately it comes back to the individual whom bought the land and rights to harvest the resources. But, again, it all comes back to the same point: "He bought it."

Nathyn wrote: Originally, there was one person who took from nature to manufacture something. Now, if you cannot reasonably justify anyone's ownership of natural resources,

He bought the land. If he didn't buy it, then he took it. Either way, it is justified.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

Roy L wrote: Did the land's seller make it?

No, he bought it.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

RueTheDay wrote: Slaveowners "bought" slaves. Does that make them their legitimate property?

Yes.

RueTheDay wrote: People buy stolen artwork from fences. Does that make the artwork their legitimate property?

No, because of the criminal activity used to acquire it.

RueTheDay wrote: The act of paying for something cannot possibly be sufficient to bestow a legitimate property right.

Why not?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

Roy L wrote: If no one can own the ocean, how can anyone have the right to own a boat that floats upon it? If no one can own the atmosphere, how can anyone have the right to own anything that sits under it?

Because there are no laws against it.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

Roy L wrote: The same thing that prevents others from using a car, house, etc. that you rent and use but do not own.

Ownership laws and property rights?

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2409

cap'n queasy wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: RueTheDay wrote: That depends on the object in question. What gave you the EXCLUSIVE right to use the object in the first place?

I bought it.

Slaveowners "bought" slaves. Does that make them their legitimate property? People buy stolen artwork from fences. Does that make the artwork their legitimate property? The act of paying for something cannot possibly be sufficient to bestow a legitimate property right.

You're equating criminal activity with legitimate trade. That's ridiculous. Western society has determined that peaceful trade is the method that citizens must use to acquire property ownership and status in society, rather than force of arms. In our society, reverting to force of arms to acquire these things is defined as criminal activity.

Virtually every piece of land in existence today was at one time or another forcefully appropriated from its previous owner through "force of arms". Thus your claim is ignorant, self-defeating, and flat false.

Quote:
You are comparing apples and oranges. Logical fallacy.

Apparently you don't even know what a "logical fallacy" is.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2409

LostSoul3412 wrote: He bought the land. If he didn't buy it, then he took it. Either way, it is justified.

IOW, "whatever is, is right". :lol:

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2409

LostSoul3412 wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Slaveowners "bought" slaves. Does that make them their legitimate property?

Yes.

Why am I not surprised that you consider slavery legitimate?

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote: People buy stolen artwork from fences. Does that make the artwork their legitimate property?

No, because of the criminal activity used to acquire it.

Irrelevant according to you. The person who currently has the artwork didn't steal it, they bought it.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote: The act of paying for something cannot possibly be sufficient to bestow a legitimate property right.

Why not?

See above. You have contradicted yourself.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

RueTheDay wrote: IOW, "whatever is, is right". :lol:

Whatever is legal, is right.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

RueTheDay wrote: Why am I not surprised that you consider slavery legitimate?

Legitimacy is determined by legality. If it is legal, it is legitimate. At the time, slavery was legal, therefore, at that time, slavery was legitimate.

RueTheDay wrote: Irrelevant according to you. The person who currently has the artwork didn't steal it, they bought it.

But now you're adding a new variable. When talking about illegally acquired property, it cannot be legitimate under any circumstances.

RueTheDay · Joined: 10 Nov 2005 Posts: 2409

LostSoul3412 wrote: RueTheDay wrote: IOW, "whatever is, is right". :lol:

Whatever is legal, is right.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

When did law become synonymous with morality?

I suppose it was legal for Hitler to annihilate millions in the concentration camps since the Nazis wrote the laws? I shudder to hear your response to this question after your resounding endorsement of slavery. In fact, I fear I may become physically ill upon reading it.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

RueTheDay wrote: When did law become synonymous with morality?

Never did, and never will. The law is not connected to any sense of morality. It is, however, connected to what is justified.

RueTheDay wrote: I suppose it was legal for Hitler to annihilate millions in the concentration camps since the Nazis wrote the laws?

Was it legal? Yes. I don't think there's any room for argument there.

Was it moral? Absolutely not. I, again, don't think there's any room for argument there.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7657

RueTheDay wrote: your resounding endorsement of slavery.

When did I ever endorse slavery? All I stated was that it was legal within the United States prior to 1863. I gave no mention to my personal opinion on the matter.