Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

RueTheDay wrote: 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.

Like I said acquiring property by force of arms is considered criminal behavior by modern society, which uses trade to acquire property rather than force of arms.

So, how property was acquired in the past, before the transition to our modern conception of what is legal and what is criminal is of historical interest only, and irrelevant to the argument. Therefore trying to compare past violence to acquire property to the method of acquistion in use today is another logical fallacy on your part. It's a logically faulty appeal to an unrelated item, a screedy appeal to emotion rather than logic.

If I tried to come and take your property by force, which is what you are advocating here, it would be just as criminal as forcing some one to be your "property" by force of arms.

After all, slaves don't stay around because someone paid some money for them, they stay because physical force is employed to compel them to stay and work.

[cap'n queasy]

LostSoul3412 wrote: 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.

Statements like that are best ignored, because they are an irrelevant aside to the argument, as well as being extremely dishonest. :lol:

[LostSoul3412]

cap'n queasy wrote: Statements like that are best ignored, because they are an irrelevant aside to the argument, as well as being extremely dishonest. :lol:

I suppose you're correct...

Paying attention to stupid comments only encourages them. :lol:

[MplsBison]

Nathyn wrote:
Obviously, it would be wrong of me to just grab your car or break into your house, just as it would be wrong for a sibling to take their other sibling's car or to break into their sibling's room. I would have to ask first and, from there, we should work out a fair agreement.

That is fair and rational. It's even reasonable.

Though I might add that you being a total stranger just walking up and saying "hey can I borrow your car" would be a turn off to the idea.


But anyway...

how is that any different than now?


You could ask me to borrow my car even if I owned it in today's society.

Quote:
But that doesn't imply Capitalism is ethical, only that it is at least temporarily necessary under existing conditions.

I think you've unintentionally hit the nail on the head.

Capitialism is necessary.

It's necessary because of human behavior.


Until that behavior fundamentally changes, capitialism will be necessary.


I doubt I would call that "temporary". Humans might be long dust before such a change would take place.

Quote: Ruetheday pointed out how you seem to support "might makes right."

Might makes things happen.

They might not be the "right" things. But what is right?

[MplsBison]

Nathyn wrote:
However, when two conflicting interests come into contact, they must reach agreements which are fair: in other words, a compromise between both party's interests, based upon an equal fulfillment of interests, rather than force.

Of course, that hinges on the definition of "fair".

If I find a briefcase with a million bucks in it and you come up and say "I demand a million bunks", the logical "compromise" is for each of us to get 500 thousand, or the mid point.

But that's certainly not fair in that situation. Not to me, anyway.


So, I think you can see how simply having a conflicting interest does not warrentsa "fair" compromise.


Quote: Simply because you have a gun does not mean that your preferences are more important than mine. And on a larger scale, just because you're wealthy enough to fund a large army again doesn't mean your preferences are more important than mine.

Are you implying that there does exist a situation where one set of preferences is more preferable than another set?

Every individual's internal set of preferences is always more preferable than someone else's set of external preferences.

In that case, how can you ever define a set of preferences that is more "important" than another set, in general?

I don't think you ever can. Each person can only ever say what is preferable to them.

Quote: "Free trade," is not a perfect equilibrium between two interests because the party with greater wealth holds more weight than the party with lesser wealth, so the wealthier person doesn't need to compromise so much.

What do you mean by "holds more weight"?

Each party values someone that the other party has.

1 party wants money and the other party wants the material item or service that the other is offering in exchange.


If you're saying that a guy who has a million in the bank selling me a car would be able to sell it to me for a higher price than a guy with only a thousand in the bank, I don't see how you can say that. It's completly dependant on me to pull the trigger on the price.

Quote: Now, in the mythical state of nature, it doesn't matter: a perfect equilibrium between interests is reached, as everyone is assumed to be of equal authority, and so the first trades made are inherently just, and thus any trade which follows that, even with an unequal distribution of freedom, is still just.

Since the state of nature never actually existed and since all property right is founded on historical theft, to uphold free trade is to uphold the rights of thieves to defend trillions of dollars worth of stolen goods.

I see what you're saying, but I don't buy it ( :wink: ).

I don't think the trades people did 50 generations ago have any effect on the trades I make today.


Hell, the trades I made last week don't have any effect on the trades I make today.

[MplsBison]

RueTheDay wrote:
Were slave owners justified in owning slaves when it was legal?

I don't care if it is "legal" or not. "Owning" a human is never justified.


However, owning a human and owning a non human are 2 fundamentally different things.


Therefore, if you exclude humans from the set of all possible ownable things, then the rest of the things, non humans, can be owned and the rules of free trade applied.

[RueTheDay]

LostSoul3412 wrote: 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.

You said slavery was LEGITIMATE and that slaves were the LEGITIMATE PROPERTY of their masters. Legitimacy is a value judgement.

[RueTheDay]

cap'n queasy wrote:
So, how property was acquired in the past, before the transition to our modern conception of what is legal and what is criminal is of historical interest only, and irrelevant to the argument.

How much time must elapse before a theft becomes irrelevant? If I steal your car and wait two weeks, is that long enough for it to be rightfully mine?

[RueTheDay]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Were slave owners justified in owning slaves when it was legal?

I don't care if it is "legal" or not. "Owning" a human is never justified.


However, owning a human and owning a non human are 2 fundamentally different things.


Therefore, if you exclude humans from the set of all possible ownable things, then the rest of the things, non humans, can be owned and the rules of free trade applied.

Can someone own the atmosphere? How about the ocean? How would they come to acquire such ownership?

I'll tell you what. I'll take the atmosphere, you take the ocean. Fair enough? Now let's engage in a little free trading. I'll make the first offer. Give me the ocean and I'll give you just enough of the atmosphere to squeak out a minimal existence for the rest of your life. You don't like that deal? Ok, I'll just wait a few minutes until you suffocate to death and then take the ocean from you.

[cap'n queasy]

RueTheDay wrote: cap'n queasy wrote:
So, how property was acquired in the past, before the transition to our modern conception of what is legal and what is criminal is of historical interest only, and irrelevant to the argument.

How much time must elapse before a theft becomes irrelevant? If I steal your car and wait two weeks, is that long enough for it to be rightfully mine?

No, but if your ancestor stole my ancestor's car I am not going to hold it against you, even if it was possible to do so.

Time elapsed is not a relevant factor, the individuals involved are. So once again you are using a logical fallacy to support what is basically an irrational argument.

Your entire argument is based on coveting something you do not own, when you should be concerned with how you can legally acquire your own property.

[cap'n queasy]

RueTheDay wrote: tman_ndsu08 wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Were slave owners justified in owning slaves when it was legal?

I don't care if it is "legal" or not. "Owning" a human is never justified.


However, owning a human and owning a non human are 2 fundamentally different things.


Therefore, if you exclude humans from the set of all possible ownable things, then the rest of the things, non humans, can be owned and the rules of free trade applied.

Can someone own the atmosphere? How about the ocean? How would they come to acquire such ownership?

I'll tell you what. I'll take the atmosphere, you take the ocean. Fair enough? Now let's engage in a little free trading. I'll make the first offer. Give me the ocean and I'll give you just enough of the atmosphere to squeak out a minimal existence for the rest of your life. You don't like that deal? Ok, I'll just wait a few minutes until you suffocate to death and then take the ocean from you.

Another irrational leap of "logic". The ownership of the atmosphere or the ocean is not in question, so that to is another irrelevant statement designed to exploit emotion.

What is in question is the best way to acquire and distribute natural resources.

Which is best?

A bunch of independent, amateur coal miners arriving at the site on public or unowned land and fighting over who gets what site to mine that day and which independent hauler should distribute it.


Or a knowledgable private company or individual buying the property and it's mineral rights, hiring workers who have chosen coal mining as their career and are skilled at it, and setting up an organized entity to extract the coal and distribute it?

I hope you realize we do it the second way these days because the first way, which is how it used to be done, was not efficient and did not work.

[infirmaryblues]

I am amazed here. What is difficult to understand about his property views? Inherently, his views PREVENT him from taking anything from you.
If you NEED it, you can use it. Chances are, what you need won't be in use.
Such a philosophy in practice isn't enforceable, but for people to believe in it and act upon it is quite respectable and better for the whole of society.

You never own anything, anyways. It's a change of hands, that's all.
Think about the cycle of nature. Anything was never something first. Nothing will ever finally be anything. Matter and energy are never created nor destroyed.

Every action has a consequence, big or small. Trading 34535 years ago has some effect in some way on the world.
Stealing from 100 years ago only becomes forgotten, and never morally correct. This is just forgivable.

Look, in entering a forum for philosophy, you agree to the fact that philosophical ideas, respectively, are true. They are true when alone and occurring in an ideal environment. When two philosophies overlap and are considered simultaneously, each is untrue. No one ever has said that philosophy is the science of how to live life, that one application is the best. If this were true, we'd all be living it. Respect his beliefs enough to understand them.

[Roy L]

cap'n queasy wrote:
Your entire argument is based on coveting something you do not own, when you should be concerned with how you can legally acquire your own property.
Funny, I could have sworn I just heard a slave owner say,
"Yoah entiah ahgument is based on covetin' somethin' y'all do not own, when y'all should be concerned with how you can legally acquiah yoah own nig... uh, slaves."

Cap'n, it is in fact YOUR entire argument that is based on your attachment to an institution that systematically violates others' rights for your personal profit, when you should be concerned with how you can look in the mirror in the morning knowing that in the interests of your unearned financial enrichment, you defend an evil that causes a Holocaust worth of injustice, oppression, robbery, suffering, poverty, starvation, horror and death EVERY YEAR.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Funny, I could have sworn I just heard a slave owner say,
"Yoah entiah ahgument is based on covetin' somethin' y'all do not own, when y'all should be concerned with how you can legally acquiah yoah own nig... uh, slaves."

When the personal insults start coming out, I know I have won the argument.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Such a philosophy in practice isn't enforceable,

Then it is irrelevant.

Quote: Inherently, his views PREVENT him from taking anything from you.
Except for my property. :lol:

And in my opinion the removal of the individual's right to own private property is immoral. No one has proven it is better for society to violate this individual right, and until they do your opinion of the matter remains speculative, at best.

[Roy L]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Were slave owners justified in owning slaves when it was legal?

I don't care if it is "legal" or not. "Owning" a human is never justified.
Neither is owning land. Glad we got that sorted out.
Quote:
However, owning a human and owning a non human are 2 fundamentally different things.
No, they are not. Slavery is quite similar to the institution of private property in land. In both cases, owners receive value and contribute no value in return. This is not an exchange at all but a one-way flow of value
from workers to privileged owners -- i.e., robbery. When slavery was abolished in the USA, former slave owners found they lost no advantage as long as they retained the land the former slaves needed to live.
Sharecropping replaced slavery without changing the basic economic relationship:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God, I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have got all the work out of him they can."

From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885. Reprinted in Social Problems, by Henry George.

Quote:
Therefore, if you exclude humans from the set of all possible ownable things, then the rest of the things, non humans, can be owned and the rules of free trade applied.
But you can't come to own a natural resource by producing it. Only by stealing it. So it is logically impossible to have a free trade in privately owned natural resources. The very basis of the trade is unfree, and nothing but a violation of others' rights.

[Roy L]

cap'n queasy wrote: RueTheDay wrote: tman_ndsu08 wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
Were slave owners justified in owning slaves when it was legal?

I don't care if it is "legal" or not. "Owning" a human is never justified.


However, owning a human and owning a non human are 2 fundamentally different things.


Therefore, if you exclude humans from the set of all possible ownable things, then the rest of the things, non humans, can be owned and the rules of free trade applied.

Can someone own the atmosphere? How about the ocean? How would they come to acquire such ownership?

I'll tell you what. I'll take the atmosphere, you take the ocean. Fair enough? Now let's engage in a little free trading. I'll make the first offer. Give me the ocean and I'll give you just enough of the atmosphere to squeak out a minimal existence for the rest of your life. You don't like that deal? Ok, I'll just wait a few minutes until you suffocate to death and then take the ocean from you.

Another irrational leap of "logic". The ownership of the atmosphere or the ocean is not in question, so that to is another irrelevant statement designed to exploit emotion.
Wrong. The ownership of the atmosphere and oceans is very much in question: you say land can rightly be owned, RTD points out that the same logic applies to the oceans and atmosphere. If you want to go there, you'd better be prepared to go all the way.
Quote:
What is in question is the best way to acquire and distribute natural resources.
Oh, we already know that the best -- in fact, the only -- way to acquire ownership of natural resources is by stealing them. And the best (or at least most profitable) way to distribute them is by charging users rent for what nature provided free of charge.

There. Wasn't that easy?
Quote:
Which is best?
Oh, the strawman, definitely: Quote:
A bunch of independent, amateur coal miners arriving at the site on public or unowned land and fighting over who gets what site to mine that day and which independent hauler should distribute it.

Or a knowledgable private company or individual buying the property and it's mineral rights, hiring workers who have chosen coal mining as their career and are skilled at it, and setting up an organized entity to extract the coal and distribute it?

I hope you realize we do it the second way these days because the first way, which is how it used to be done, was not efficient and did not work.
I hope YOU realize it also was not in any way related to recovery of market resource rents for the purposes and benefit of the public that creates them.

Ooops. Guess not.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: The ownership of the atmosphere and oceans is very much in question:

It quite simply is not. :lol:

[Roy L]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Funny, I could have sworn I just heard a slave owner say,
"Yoah entiah ahgument is based on covetin' somethin' y'all do not own, when y'all should be concerned with how you can legally acquiah yoah own nig... uh, slaves."

When the personal insults start coming out, I know I have won the argument.
?? What personal insults? I simply pointed out, in a way I hoped might occasion some amusement, that your insulting, personal accusation that RTD was motivated by envy was logically and morally indistinguishable from similar accusations the antebellum slave owners hurled at abolitionists.

Oh, and btw, when the apologists for privilege and injustice have nothing left to offer but accusations of envy leveled against those who protest privilege and injustice, I know I have won the argument.

And it seems to happen a lot.

[cap'n queasy]

You have yet to prove that ownership of private property is is in any way injustice. Clearly it is injustice to violate the right of the individual to own private property. You might have a case if only certain people were allowed to own property, but only insofar as certain people would be denied the same right.

Leveling hysterical straw man comparisons to slavery and people owning the atmosphere etc do not make the cut or validate your position.