@marbles, I'm fully aware of the objectivist/libertarian definition of liberty. You seem to not have any idea that this is not "the" definition of liberty. This is perhaps the definition of liberty that appeals most to you, but it isn't the sole (or even common) conception of liberty.

Google positive liberty, for example.

Also, in that other conversation, you called me "hyperbolic" for hypothesizing that you believed liberty was absolute authority over property -- that is in a very literal sense what this video is describing.

*politics

Adding video to channels (Politics) - requested by NetRunner.

This is a perfect example of the absurdity of "objectivism".

The premise is the basically marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces", but with some arbitrary caveat about that only being true when the things worked on are "in a state of nature".

The "Voluntary Mutual Consent" principle, is also similarly constrained by the unexplained arbitrary limitation, that you are required to consent to some arbitrary property system, of course with no coherent way to decide which property system is the "right" one. This "principle" like the "state of nature" special case, must be taken on faith.

"The Marketplace of Values" is similarly not open to any disagreement or experimentation with regards to market and property systems. We are only allowed to experiment once we have given up the right to hold a contrary opinion.

This does not sound like liberty to me.

I must say that this seems naive to me.

Natural rights don't exist.

Black and White thinking is an effective way to guard irrational belief systems from critique. If your beliefs can't stand on their own, then it's most beneficial to cloak them in the armor of a lofty ideal that is beyond critique. It's much easier to dehumanize than empathize.

-The religious cloak their irrational beliefs in the authority of an all-powerful, all-good, supernatural creator of the universe. Disagree with irrational religious beliefs and you are a heretic, bound for hell upon death.

-Ayn Rand cloaked her irrational beliefs in the armor of objectivity. Disagree with her irrational beliefs and you are disagreeing with objective truth, which makes you wrong before you open your mouth.

-George W. Bush cloaked his irrational beliefs in the armor of freedom. Disagree with his irrational conservative beliefs and you disagree with freedom. "You are either with us or against us", he said.

-Capitalist Libertarians cloak their irrational beliefs in the armor of liberty. Disagree with irrational market beliefs and you disagree with liberty. You are a tyrant and a statist.

For those who believe in democracy, the belief system and the ideal are one in the same, for better or worse. There is no armor needed, because critique is an essential part of democracy.

I think it's important to always draw a distinction between the bible and morality; between selfishness and virtue; between nationalism and freedom; and between fundamentalist capitalism and liberty; so that we can deny this craven tactic from taking more hostages.

>> ^NetRunner:

@marbles, I'm fully aware of the objectivist/libertarian definition of liberty. You seem to not have any idea that this is not "the" definition of liberty. This is perhaps the definition of liberty that appeals most to you, but it isn't the sole (or even common) conception of liberty.
Google positive liberty, for example.
Also, in that other conversation, you called me "hyperbolic" for hypothesizing that you believed liberty was absolute authority over property -- that is in a very literal sense what this video is describing.
politics


No, this is "the" definition of liberty. I'm not sure how Ayn Rand fits into the conversation and "libertarian" wasn't even a word until mid to late 19th Century.

Individual liberty was a liberal idea born out of the Age of Enlightenment, along with other liberal ideas like free markets, consent of the governed, and limited government.
Liberal and liberty come from Latin word liber, which means "free."
Modern conceptions of liberalism take on a statist agenda, and so do modern conceptions of the idea of liberty.

I planned on eventually replying in the other conversation. Maybe I'll muster up a reply tomorrow. You said "property owners get absolute unchecked authority over how people may interact with their property". "unchecked" implies that freedom grants people the right to ignore other people's rights. And if someone else has authority over your property, then by definition it's not your property. It's impossible have liberty without the protection of property.

>> ^dgandhi:

This is a perfect example of the absurdity of "objectivism".
The premise is the basically marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces", but with some arbitrary caveat about that only being true when the things worked on are "in a state of nature".
The "Voluntary Mutual Consent" principle, is also similarly constrained by the unexplained arbitrary limitation, that you are required to consent to some arbitrary property system, of course with no coherent way to decide which property system is the "right" one. This "principle" like the "state of nature" special case, must be taken on faith.
"The Marketplace of Values" is similarly not open to any disagreement or experimentation with regards to market and property systems. We are only allowed to experiment once we have given up the right to hold a contrary opinion.
This does not sound like liberty to me.


Sorry, I have no idea what you are referencing from the video.

>> ^gwiz665:

I must say that this seems naive to me.
Natural rights don't exist.


Naive like... individuals should'nt be allowed to have guns--that is unless they are paid by the state to have them.

Natural rights don't exist? 10 out of 10 tyrants agree. So where do rights come from?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Black and White thinking is an effective way to guard irrational belief systems from critique. If your beliefs can't stand on their own, then it's most beneficial to cloak them in the armor of a lofty ideal that is beyond critique. It's much easier to dehumanize than empathize.
-The religious cloak their irrational beliefs in the authority of an all-powerful, all-good, supernatural creator of the universe. Disagree with irrational religious beliefs and you are a heretic, bound for hell upon death.
-Ayn Rand cloaked her irrational beliefs in the armor of objectivity. Disagree with her irrational beliefs and you are disagreeing with objective truth, which makes you wrong before you open your mouth.
-George W. Bush cloaked his irrational beliefs in the armor of freedom. Disagree with his irrational conservative beliefs and you disagree with freedom. "You are either with us or against us", he said.
-Capitalist Libertarians cloak their irrational beliefs in armor of liberty. Disagree with irrational market beliefs and you disagree with liberty. You are a tyrant and a statist.
For those who believe in democracy, the belief system and the ideal are one in the same, for better or worse. There is no armor needed, because critique is an essential part of democracy.
I think it's important to always draw a distinction between the bible and morality; between selfishness and virtue; between nationalism and freedom; and between fundamentalist capitalism and liberty; so that we can deny this craven tactic from taking more hostages.


I love the conjecture, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. Freedom is black and white.

I would knock down all your strawmen, but I'll have to save that for later.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Democracy is government officials pandering to the crude and mindless whims of the masses. Democracy is a means to an end, naturally progressing into oligarchy.

Why do you think democracy was never mentioned in the Constitution, Articles of Confederation, or Declaration of Independence?

Democracy operates from the false concepts of relativism that everybody is exactly the same. Democracy you think in terms of the rights of man, not the rights of individuals.

>> ^marbles:
Sorry, I have no idea what you are referencing from the video.

Okay, let me help you with that.

In this part I talk about how the basic premises of owning self/work are borrowed from a competing ideology, and are then subverted by a poorly defined special case which applies to just about everything.
>> ^dgandhi:
This is a perfect example of the absurdity of "objectivism".
The premise is the basically marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces", but with some arbitrary caveat about that only being true when the things worked on are "in a state of nature".

In this part I quote one of the stated themes and point out how it is self contradicting in the context of the ideological clarity supposedly depicted in the animation
>> ^dgandhi:
The "Voluntary Mutual Consent" principle, is also similarly constrained by the unexplained arbitrary limitation, that you are required to consent to some arbitrary property system, of course with no coherent way to decide which property system is the "right" one. This "principle" like the "state of nature" special case, must be taken on faith.

Again I quote the video, and point out how it has already constrained its purported freedom by defining liberty in such a way that only those that agree with the stated argument from authority are granted the right to try things, but only so long as they don't rock the poorly conceived boat.
>> ^dgandhi:
"The Marketplace of Values" is similarly not open to any disagreement or experimentation with regards to market and property systems. We are only allowed to experiment once we have given up the right to hold a contrary opinion.


Here is where I point out that the result of the argument does not seem to fit the definition you, or the video's author, claim.
>> ^dgandhi:


This does not sound like liberty to me.

^LOL

>> ^marbles:


No, this is "the" definition of liberty.
Your assertion doesn't make it true. There is an open, active, and fairly passionate debate still raging over the philosophical definition of liberty.

The two most common conceptions of liberty are "negative" liberty, which defines liberty as freedom from external constraint, and "positive" liberty, which defines liberty as having the power and resources to do as you please. I personally feel like that's an artificial divison; a lack of resources constitutes an external constraint.

This whole video isn't trying to find a universally accepted definitions for the word liberty. It just lays out an entire philosophical doctrine, specifically, the libertarian philosophical doctrine.
>> ^marbles:
I'm not sure how Ayn Rand fits into the conversation and "libertarian" wasn't even a word until mid to late 19th Century.

Actually, libertarians are a 20th century phenomenon. And Ayn Rand was a big influence on libertarian thinking. Selfishness as a virtue, and all that.

>> ^marbles:
Individual liberty was a liberal idea born out of the Age of Enlightenment, along with other liberal ideas like free markets, consent of the governed, and limited government.
Liberal and liberty come from Latin word liber, which means "free."

Right, but that's liberalism, and it's not like liberal philosophy was flash-frozen in the 19th century.

Libertarians decided they didn't like all the talk of equality and the common good that classical liberals were wont to engage in, and so they excised it from their philosophy, and try to pretend classical liberals never cared about that stuff.

"Modern" liberals realized that negative liberty isn't the only kind of liberty. One needs to have a certain level of power and resources to have any individual freedom.
>> ^marbles:
You said "property owners get absolute unchecked authority over how people may interact with their property". "unchecked" implies that freedom grants people the right to ignore other people's rights.

What puts a check on a property owner's actions? And when is it legitimate to check a property owner's actions? Is it a short list (no damage to other people's property, no stealing, and no fraud), or is it a list too long to comprehensively state?

For example, should there be a legal constraint on racial discrimination?

>> ^marbles:
And if someone else has authority over your property, then by definition it's not your property.

Again, this is an attempt to assert a definition that doesn't apply in the real world. I own my house. I also have a mortgage on it, so the bank has a level of authority over my house. I also have to pay property taxes on it, and follow the local laws. Yet it's still my property.

Which is to say, the definition of the word "property" doesn't include anything about it being property if and only if I'm the only one who gets any say of any kind about what's done with it.

Thanks for proving my point.

Also, I don't believe you have the ability to take my argument apart, despite your brag. I'll give you a power point if you can mount something even marginally decent. >> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Black and White thinking is an effective way to guard irrational belief systems from critique. If your beliefs can't stand on their own, then it's most beneficial to cloak them in the armor of a lofty ideal that is beyond critique. It's much easier to dehumanize than empathize.
-The religious cloak their irrational beliefs in the authority of an all-powerful, all-good, supernatural creator of the universe. Disagree with irrational religious beliefs and you are a heretic, bound for hell upon death.
-Ayn Rand cloaked her irrational beliefs in the armor of objectivity. Disagree with her irrational beliefs and you are disagreeing with objective truth, which makes you wrong before you open your mouth.
-George W. Bush cloaked his irrational beliefs in the armor of freedom. Disagree with his irrational conservative beliefs and you disagree with freedom. "You are either with us or against us", he said.
-Capitalist Libertarians cloak their irrational beliefs in armor of liberty. Disagree with irrational market beliefs and you disagree with liberty. You are a tyrant and a statist.
For those who believe in democracy, the belief system and the ideal are one in the same, for better or worse. There is no armor needed, because critique is an essential part of democracy.
I think it's important to always draw a distinction between the bible and morality; between selfishness and virtue; between nationalism and freedom; and between fundamentalist capitalism and liberty; so that we can deny this craven tactic from taking more hostages.

I love the conjecture, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. Freedom is black and white.
I would knock down all your strawmen, but I'll have to save that for later.
Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Democracy is government officials pandering to the crude and mindless whims of the masses. Democracy is a means to an end, naturally progressing into oligarchy.
Why do you think democracy was never mentioned in the Constitution, Articles of Confederation, or Declaration of Independence?
Democracy operates from the false concepts of relativism that everybody is exactly the same. Democracy you think in terms of the rights of man, not the rights of individuals.

Individuality falls down once we want a society to work. We sacrifice something to make it work, some people want to be part of it without sacrificing - this is naive. You can check out of society and move somewhere else, or try to change it through politics to be more individually-centered. Taxes are not theft, it's a mutually consented agreement, but it was made by our forefathers, to make society work.

Now that sacrifice is not complete and total - we do have quite a lot of freedoms (liberty) within our societies, but these were agreed upon by our forefathers too. The constitution is just a piece of paper with some good ideas in it and some bad ones. This is what I mean, when I say natural rights don't exist. Rights don't exist in a vacuum. They are agreed upon. We may be comforted to say that our lives are our own, and within our society they are, because the society has agreed that this is a right.

Personally, I don't think guns are an important freedom. I even think there ought to be checks and balances to keep as many mentally unstable, criminals and other bad citizens from getting them. I'm not even comfortable with regular people having them - I don't want one myself, for certain. Just because it happened to be written down in the 1700s, doesn't mean it applies today. This is a right I think we should do away with, because it causes more grief than it solves.

Now mind you, if the american people were actually oppressed, then I would be all for them having something to defend themselves with - but like gun proponents like to say, then they would be able to get them anyway. I'm not talking about stopping guns 100%, I just want to stop 90 % of the nut balls, which a mandatory license would totally do. The other 10 % is another deal.
>> ^marbles:

>> ^gwiz665:
I must say that this seems naive to me.
Natural rights don't exist.

Naive like... individuals should'nt be allowed to have guns--that is unless they are paid by the state to have them.
Natural rights don't exist? 10 out of 10 tyrants agree. So where do rights come from?

Moving this video to marbles's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

@dgandhi

Maybe I was unclear. Your incoherent use of quotations has little to no context regarding the video.

Re: This is a perfect example of the absurdity of "objectivism".
The premise is the basically marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces", but with some arbitrary caveat about that only being true when the things worked on are "in a state of nature".

False, and false. Liberty was a philosophy long before Rand, Marx, or Engels. Your 3 quotes have no reference in the video.

Re: The "Voluntary Mutual Consent" principle, is also similarly constrained by the unexplained arbitrary limitation, that you are required to consent to some arbitrary property system, of course with no coherent way to decide which property system is the "right" one. This "principle" like the "state of nature" special case, must be taken on faith.

Life is not arbitrary. Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Tangible items that we refer to as property are only representations of property. Life is constrained by “property systems”. That’s because most property systems exist so one group of people can steal from another. Voluntary mutual consent exists beyond any property system. 4 quotes, only 1 reference, no context.

Re: "The Marketplace of Values" is similarly not open to any disagreement or experimentation with regards to market and property systems. We are only allowed to experiment once we have given up the right to hold a contrary opinion.

False. The quote from the video is “Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values, rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal”. The opposite suggests you give up your right to ANY opinion.

@NetRunner

You’re trying to argue semantics now. Liberty is always going to be liberty; it’s part of history. Call it what you want, I don’t care. And like I previously mentioned, modern “conceptions” of liberty only serve to advance a statist agenda. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Re: What puts a check on a property owner's actions? And when is it legitimate to check a property owner's actions? Is it a short list (no damage to other people's property, no stealing, and no fraud), or is it a list too long to comprehensively state?

For there to be a crime, there has to be victim. There is a list called statutory laws. Statutes are supposed to be grounded in violations of natural rights.

Re: For example, should there be a legal constraint on racial discrimination?

Are you suggesting you can change the way people think, by making certain thoughts illegal? There’s always going to be bigots in the world.

Re: Again, this is an attempt to assert a definition that doesn't apply in the real world. I own my house. I also have a mortgage on it, so the bank has a level of authority over my house. I also have to pay property taxes on it, and follow the local laws. Yet it's still my property.
Which is to say, the definition of the word "property" doesn't include anything about it being property if and only if I'm the only one who gets any say of any kind about what's done with it.

You gave the bank authority over your house as a security on your mortgage. You also entered into an agreement with your city/county concerning taxes/laws and what services you would receive from the city/county. This is a property system that can be rife with fraud and corruption.

@dystopianfuturetoday

Well, so far you’ve been vague and indirect. If anything, you’ve proven my point (as described in video description).

Your treatise on irrational belief systems doesn’t address the video in any way. If you’re referencing something I’ve said previously, then it may help to quote it.

Democracy: The rational belief system. Thanks for the laugh.

@gwiz665

That’s kind of sad you feel that way. But you’re not alone.
To be clear this is what you believe:

Your right to life, liberty, and protection of property is granted to you by a select group of individuals.
This group has the power to decide if you should live or die.
This group has the power to enslave you.
This group has the power to take your property away from you. In fact, it’s actually their property; they decide how much you can possess.

Actually, your belief system sounds a lot like Christianity or some other religion, except they subscribe to a higher power where as you subscribe to mortal humans.

Maybe we can add this to dft’s list… Wait, scratch that. Democracy is not irrational. I repeat NOT an irrational belief system.

Isn't it ironic that you ridicule other people's mindless beliefs while oblivious to your own?

You are misinterpreting my beliefs, @marbles.

My rights (life, liberty and protection of property) are granted to me by a social contract, which has been assembled earlier in the lifetime of the society I live in - it's not a distinct group of individuals that have power over me, it's everyone that's a part of the society I live in, including myself.

I, along with many others, have appointed people to keep the piece (the law, police and lawmakers) and they do so on behalf of me and the rest of society. Together we have decided that each citizen have certain inalienable rights within our society. This does not mean that they naturally occur - these "rules" are entirely man-made. Within that society, the group agrees which rights we all want in interacting with each other. Inside the society, we have agreed to have degrees of liberty, while limiting other liberties.

The liberty that's defined in the video above, is just a different rule-set. It's no more valid than the one we use, just because some people want it to be. In older societies, individuals would have to carve out their own rules. We've grown since then. We have liberty within our own societies.

So, no, I don't believe that anyone else should be able to decide whether I should live or die - HOWEVER I do subscribe to the laws of my society, such that I do not go out and kill anyone else, because then someone else would be justified in ending my life too.

I think it's more interesting when we see societies with different rule-sets collide, like the muslim world and our idea of freedom of speech (my avatar is a response to that).

You can't have a society, without mutually agreed upon rules. We accept the rules that our appointed politicians have agreed upon, since we don't want to do all negotiating individually, because it's a waste of time, or at least uses a lot of time.

It's intensely simple to see that rights aren't natural, when you look at earlier societies, where life was taken wantonly by priests, kings and anyone else in power or not. Still, we see it today with wars against terror and other ideas, which is just silly. In the states we see it clearly in Gitmo, where all rules are suspended (which many, many are against). Their reasoning is that they are not a part of the society, so no rules are applied to them. I'm against this, since I think that the rules of my society should apply to everyone, but there you go.

Just as I suspected, you have as few marbles below the belt as you do above the neck. >> ^marbles:

@dystopianfuturetoday
Well, so far you’ve been vague and indirect. If anything, you’ve proven my point (as described in video description).
Your treatise on irrational belief systems doesn’t address the video in any way. If you’re referencing something I’ve said previously, then it may help to quote it.
Democracy: The rational belief system. Thanks for the laugh.

>> ^marbles:

@dgandhi
Maybe I was unclear. Your incoherent use of quotations has little to no context regarding the video.


Okay, one at a time then(again):

"objectivism" is a ref to the content, It is in quote because Rand's name for her ideology is a troll, and should not be taken seriously, it is relevant to the vid in that the vid describes an ideology indistinguishable from Rand's.

marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces" is a ref to the bit that starts at 1:45, that claims legitimacy on the same grounds as Marx, except that the basis of the claim is false, because nothing in the modern world is not already owned.

Objects existing in a "state of nature" is a necessarily prerequisite for the ability to own your work, that exactly matched the vids claim at 1:58, this is also quote for absurdity, not because it is a direct quote from the vid.

>> ^marbles:
False, and false. Liberty was a philosophy long before Rand, Marx, or Engels.

This video was not made pre-Marx. The basis for property rights made is indistinguishable from Marx, until the twist of it never being possible, and therefor not a coherent basis, is thrown in at the end.

>> ^marbles:

Your 3 quotes have no reference in the video.

I am not quoting the video at this point, I am referencing the video, there is a difference. I am also using reasonably clear names for positions the video creator takes, not typing out a transcript.

>> ^marbles:
Life is not arbitrary. Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Tangible items that we refer to as property are only representations of property.

You say this, but what do you mean?

I am alive, and I have the power to make choices and take actions, these are not rights they are facts.

Others have the power to act and make choices as well, this is simply a fact.

Sometimes people decide not to mess with each other, they form a society and grant each other contractual rights that serve their best interests as they understand them.

Fee simple property is one of these arrangements where a group of people agree to protect privileged access to some resource to particular people, this too is only a right by contract.

The Randian trick of trying to conflate the contract with the fact, and somehow make it universal and immutable, is cute in its naivete, but really has no basis in reality.

The entire self ownership argument is based on the premise that self directing entities can be owned, and therefor you must own yourself to stop anybody else from owning you. If we dispense with the whole idea of owning (because it's silly) or even just with the idea of owning people, there is no need to own yourself. You, and everybody else can just be un-owned, and un-ownable (but not un-pwnable). There you go, one great (and contrived) moral quandary averted, you're welcome.

>> ^marbles:
False. The quote from the video is “Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values, rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal”. The opposite suggests you give up your right to ANY opinion.


Okay fine, I disregard your silly property claims, and I will make use of all the things you claim to own whenever I wish, since I am perfectly within my rights to not be constrained by your threat to initiate force when I use these things.

Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.

>> ^marbles:

You’re trying to argue semantics now. Liberty is always going to be liberty;

No, this is what a philosophical argument is like. You take a concept everyone "knows" and thinks they understand, and then you try to test it with thought experiments and logic, to see if you can really come up with a rigorous definition for it.

The result is that people usually find out that the concept they were absolutely positively certain they understood is actually a lot more fuzzy and ill-defined than they originally thought.

Well, at least if they're open minded enough to actually set aside preconceptions and conceits, and try to apply some critical thinking to the topic...

>> ^marbles:
And like I previously mentioned, modern “conceptions” of liberty only serve to advance a statist agenda. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Just FYI, "freedom is slavery" is exactly what this video is saying. "Property is freedom" translates to "Absolute authority over other people when they're on my property...is freedom".

As for ignorance is strength, you seem pretty ignorant of the philosophy of the left, and you seem to think this gives you some sort of strength. I guess it keeps your mind uncluttered with ideas you "know" are wrong, even though you don't know what they actually are...

>> ^marbles:
Re: What puts a check on a property owner's actions? And when is it legitimate to check a property owner's actions? Is it a short list (no damage to other people's property, no stealing, and no fraud), or is it a list too long to comprehensively state?
For there to be a crime, there has to be victim. There is a list called statutory laws. Statutes are supposed to be grounded in violations of natural rights.

Why should there have to be a victim? Who decides what natural rights are?

Personally my favorite natural right is the divine right of kings. My second favorite is primae noctis.

For some reason, the ACLU doesn't help me get those recognized in law, the statist fuckers. Always trying to keep me from exercising my freedom.

>> ^marbles:
Re: For example, should there be a legal constraint on racial discrimination?
Are you suggesting you can change the way people think, by making certain thoughts illegal?

I'm not talking about a thought crime, I'm talking about putting a sign in your store window saying "Whites only".

Would a law making that practice illegal be pro- or anti-liberty?

>> ^marbles:
Re: Again, this is an attempt to assert a definition that doesn't apply in the real world. I own my house. I also have a mortgage on it, so the bank has a level of authority over my house. I also have to pay property taxes on it, and follow the local laws. Yet it's still my property.
Which is to say, the definition of the word "property" doesn't include anything about it being property if and only if I'm the only one who gets any say of any kind about what's done with it.
You gave the bank authority over your house as a security on your mortgage. You also entered into an agreement with your city/county concerning taxes/laws and what services you would receive from the city/county. This is a property system that can be rife with fraud and corruption.


Honestly, this seems like a bit of progress. How did I enter into an agreement with the city/county? Is it only the city/county, or is it also the state/nation I entered into agreement with?

If that's how you explain away authority, then who is ever exercising authority? Not the city/county/state/federal government -- they're exercising their rights as property owners and signatories to a contract.

@gwiz665

You’re talking about two different things. If society can decide what rights you have, then that means they are alienable. If society can grant you the right to life, then it can take it away.

Did the millions of dead civilians in Iraq have a right to life? Society decided that waging a war based on false evidence was more important than protecting human life.

Did Osama bin Laden have a right to life? The US Constitution says the government shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But society trumps the law.

It’s impossible for society to grant inalienable rights. They make rules. They sometimes grant you legal rights, but those are alienable. The right to life is inalienable. You don’t need society to make a law against murder to know it’s wrong. Humans in earlier societies had a right to life, but society willfully violated it. What has changed?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Just as I suspected, you have as few marbles below the belt as you do above the neck. >> ^marbles:
@dystopianfuturetoday
Well, so far you’ve been vague and indirect. If anything, you’ve proven my point (as described in video description).
Your treatise on irrational belief systems doesn’t address the video in any way. If you’re referencing something I’ve said previously, then it may help to quote it.
Democracy: The rational belief system. Thanks for the laugh.



Well, I've asked twice for clarity on what you're referring to--so it looks like I'm not the only one.

Attack the post, not the poster is what I always say... but maybe that's just the marbles rattling around.

@dgandhi

You seem to have a problem understanding how quotations work.

I’m still trying to figure out how something can be “ideology indistinguishable” from objectivism and also a Marxist axiom. Fascinating that it can capture the essence of two polar opposite philosophies. But nevertheless, it doesn’t matter--since it’s neither.

Re: "state of nature" is a well developed concept, that exactly matched the vids claim at 1:58, this is also quote for absurdity, not because it is a direct quote from the vid.

From the video: “Property is that part of Nature which you turn to valuable use.” That’s reality. It’s self-evident.

Re: The basis for property rights made is indistinguishable from Marx, until the twist of it never being possible, and therefor not a coherent basis, is thrown in at the end.

Citation please.

Re: You say this, but what do you mean?
I am alive, and I have the power to make choices and take actions, these are not rights they are facts.
Others have the power to act and make choices as well, this is simply a fact.

And others live in places that don’t share the same freedom you have. What’s your point? Did your choices and actions produce anything of value?

Re: The entire self ownership argument is based on the premise that self directing entities can be owned, and therefor you must own yourself to stop anybody else from owning you. If we dispense with the whole idea of owning (because it's silly) or even just with the idea of owning people, there is no need to own yourself. You, and everybody else can just be un-owned, and un-ownable (but not un-pwnable). There you go, one great (and contrived) moral quandary averted, you're welcome.

Thanks, you just ended slavery all over the world! It's amazing!

Re: Okay fine, I disregard your silly property claims, and I will make use of all the things you claim to own whenever I wish, since I am perfectly within my rights to not be constrained by your threat to initiate force when I use these things.

Think again.

Re: Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.

You don’t have to accept my property argument. And I don’t have to accept your nonsense that property isn’t property. But guess who wins—the one with the property. Don’t believe me: Go ahead and “make use of all the things” of your nearest neighbor. Take his car, his money, his clothes. Let me know how that works out.

@NetRunner

Re: No, this is what a philosophical argument is like. You take a concept everyone "knows" and thinks they understand, and then you try to test it with thought experiments and logic, to see if you can really come up with a rigorous definition for it.

That’s already been done Hoss, centuries ago. You can dissect it and come up with terms like “positive liberty” all you want, but it serves no purpose but to undermine liberty as a whole. Property is an extension of life. If you deny the right of protection of property, then you’re also denying the right to protect one’s life.

Re: Just FYI, "freedom is slavery" is exactly what this video is saying. "Property is freedom" translates to "Absolute authority over other people when they're on my property...is freedom".

False. More hyperbole?

Re: Why should there have to be a victim?

How else is there a crime?

Re: Who decides what natural rights are?

No one decides. They’re inherent. They evolved in the human mind long before the organization of human society.

Re: I'm not talking about a thought crime, I'm talking about putting a sign in your store window saying "Whites only".
Would a law making that practice illegal be pro- or anti-liberty?

It’s none of my concern who a private individual decides to discriminate against. It’s their loss if they’re running a business. And it's some other business’ gain. Why would you want to reward a bigot by forcing him to do business with someone he doesn’t want to? And why would an individual want to do business with someone who is bigoted against them anyway? Outlawing an individual's choice to discriminate is not going to stop discrimination and only serves to remove the economic punishment one would receive by doing so. People have free choice. You don't have the right to not be offended.

Re: Honestly, this seems like a bit of progress. How did I enter into an agreement with the city/county? Is it only the city/county, or is it also the state/nation I entered into agreement with?

You entered the agreement when you bought your house and paid property taxes. I don’t claim that our land property system is consistent with liberty. Just like our tax system isn’t, nor our currency system. So you’re wasting your time trying to find fault with our property systems as a critique against the concept of property itself.

Re: If that's how you explain away authority, then who is ever exercising authority? Not the city/county/state/federal government -- they're exercising their rights as property owners and signatories to a contract.

I’m not explaining away anything. You’re trying to dismiss the notion of liberty by using “real world” circumstances where liberty is violated. The law is supposed to be the authority. And the law comes from the individual’s natural right to self defense.

>> ^marbles:

@dgandhi
You seem to have a problem understanding how quotations work.

Really? I quote common phrases from well established ideologies, and you just can't figure it out, so I'm doing it wrong?

Look, if you have no idea about the alternatives to your self contradicting belief system you can't really expect to have a discussion with people literate in these issues without having to look some stuff up, do your homework.

Your lack of general knowledge in this field is not an argument against those who disagree with you.

>> ^marbles:


I’m still trying to figure out how something can be “ideology indistinguishable” from objectivism and also a Marxist axiom. Fascinating that it can capture the essence of two polar opposite philosophies. But nevertheless, it doesn’t matter--since it’s neither.

Randism and Marxism are based on the same initial premise: people have a natural right to objects created by their labor. The video you posted makes a Randian argument, whether you believe that this argument existed before Rand is immaterial, we are not debating authorship, we are debating content.

If you can point out even one point made by the video that diverges from Rand, then you can make a distinction, otherwise I'll continue to call it what it is.

>> ^marbles:
From the video: “Property is that part of Nature which you turn to valuable use.” That’s reality. It’s self-evident.

I can just as easily claim that the fact that property is a social construction is self-evident, but that gets us nowhere since "self-evident" is just sloppy posturing.

>> ^marbles:

And others live in places that don’t share the same freedom you have. What’s your point? Did your choices and actions produce anything of value?

I made no claim about the efficacy of actions taken by individuals, I only made claims of power. Power is fact, not social convention. In my society I am forbidden from taking heavy objects and bashing people over the head with them. I still have the power to do it, because my body is capable of the motion and my mind is capable of directing it, which society I live in effects this not at all.

My point is that I am dealing in facts, and you are dealing in imposed social contracts, and attempting to conflate the two.

Value is also an arbitrary social convention, you will find that it will not help you here.

>> ^marbles:
Thanks, you just ended slavery all over the world! It's amazing!



I insist it is categorically wrong, and you insist on perpetuating its basis. You really don't have a leg up on this one.

>> ^marbles:

Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.
You don’t have to accept my property argument. And I don’t have to accept your nonsense that property isn’t property. But guess who wins—the one with the property. Don’t believe me: Go ahead and “make use of all the things” of your nearest neighbor. Take his car, his money, his clothes. Let me know how that works out.


I have a social contract with my neighbors. If every social contract I have with my neighbors is universal and immutable, then I suppose there is a sacred responsibly to mow your lawn, and not park your car in the stretch of public space in front of my house. You also, by this "logic" (oh no, fear quotes, do't get distracted) are required by your natural rights to pay taxes, and submit to reasonable search and seizure.

You are attempting to get an ought from an is, while completely disregarding the why of the is, or the other things that are for the same reason. The fact that social contract property looks like Randian property 99.999% of the time does not make it the same thing.

You are all tied in knots because you want a benefit of social contract without the costs, you want to free ride, and it bothers you that we think you have no right to do so. In order to rationalize this to yourself you have decided that you are entitled to property by some mechanism outside of the social contract. The problem is you have failed to realize that in the absence of that contract, claims to property have no power. If society at large does not accept your property claim, then society will not protect your property, and others will use it with impunity. No amount of hand waving will create the power to protect your unattended stake out of thin air.

But why is the right to life inalienable? Is it because God gives it? Is it because you really want it to be?

The real world doesn't work that way. Societies make rules and laws and that's what we have. We have an internal moral compass as well, which those rules hopefully reflect as much as possible, but that's it.
>> ^marbles:

@gwiz665
You’re talking about two different things. If society can decide what rights you have, then that means they are alienable. If society can grant you the right to life, then it can take it away.
Did the millions of dead civilians in Iraq have a right to life? Society decided that waging a war based on false evidence was more important than protecting human life.
Did Osama bin Laden have a right to life? The US Constitution says the government shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But society trumps the law.
It’s impossible for society to grant inalienable rights. They make rules. They sometimes grant you legal rights, but those are alienable. The right to life is inalienable. You don’t need society to make a law against murder to know it’s wrong. Humans in earlier societies had a right to life, but society willfully violated it. What has changed?

>> ^marbles:

No one decides. They’re inherent. They evolved in the human mind long before the organization of human society.

Okay, I just have to add, this claim re:property displays an absurd degree of historical illiteracy.

1) Nomadic human societies tend to use a possession scheme, where its yours if you have it.

2) As people began to settle land they started using a usufruct scheme where it's yours only while you maintain it.

3) As settlements and their governments became more powerful they created property in perpetuity to consolidate their own power.

Property, as you defend it, is the result of a statist powergrab.

If there exists an inherent set of human rights to things, history shows that to be by physical possession only.

>> ^dgandhi:
Really? I quote common phrases from well established ideologies, and you just can't figure it out, so I'm doing it wrong?

Look, if you have no idea about the alternatives to your self contradicting belief system you can't really expect to have a discussion with people literate in these issues without having to look some stuff up, do your homework.

Your lack of general knowledge in this field is not an argument against those who disagree with you.

No, you’re quoting “objectivism” for its absurdity like it has another meaning. You’re quoting phrases from other ideologies without establishing how it has any relevance to the video. You have failed to make any argument that liberty is self-contradicting. Quoting other ideologies and then saying those quotes contradict themselves—that has no relevance to liberty.
>> ^dgandhi:
Randism and Marxism are based on the same initial premise: people have a natural right to objects created by their labor. The video you posted makes a Randian argument, whether you believe that this argument existed before Rand is immaterial, we are not debating authorship, we are debating content.
Incorrect. Marxism does not share that premise. I don’t deny Rand believes in liberty, objectivism goes beyond just believing in liberty. That’s 0 for 2.
>> ^dgandhi:
I can just as easily claim that the fact that property is a social construction is self-evident, but that gets us nowhere since "self-evident" is just sloppy posturing.
Where does production come from? If it is a social construction then it would be self-evident.
>> ^dgandhi:
I made no claim about the efficacy of actions taken by individuals, I only made claims of power. Power is fact, not social convention. In my society I am forbidden from taking heavy objects and bashing people over the head with them. I still have the power to do it, because my body is capable of the motion and my mind is capable of directing it, which society I live in effects this not at all.

My point is that I am dealing in facts, and you are dealing in imposed social contracts, and attempting to conflate the two.

Then you have no point. Fact: Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Social convention: Property is taken from individuals to serve the collective.
>> ^dgandhi:
I insist it is categorically wrong, and you insist on perpetuating its basis. You really don't have a leg up on this one.
No, Liberty insists slavery is categorically wrong, you insist it doesn’t exist and never could.
>> ^dgandhi:
I have a social contract with my neighbors. If every social contract I have with my neighbors is universal and immutable, then I suppose there is a sacred responsibly to mow your lawn, and not park your car in the stretch of public space in front of my house. You also, by this "logic" (oh no, fear quotes, do't get distracted) are required by your natural rights to pay taxes, and submit to reasonable search and seizure.
False. Social contracts are not by default based on protecting liberty.

>> ^dgandhi:
You are all tied in knots because you want a benefit of social contract without the costs, you want to free ride, and it bothers you that we think you have no right to do so. In order to rationalize this to yourself you have decided that you are entitled to property by some mechanism outside of the social contract. The problem is you have failed to realize that in the absence of that contract, claims to property have no power. If society at large does not accept your property claim, then society will not protect your property, and others will use it with impunity. No amount of hand waving will create the power to protect your unattended stake out of thin air.
False again. If I produce something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me. I only seek a social contract as a means of collective force to protect myself and other individuals from unlawful action.

>> ^gwiz665:

But why is the right to life inalienable? Is it because God gives it? Is it because you really want it to be?
The real world doesn't work that way. Societies make rules and laws and that's what we have. We have an internal moral compass as well, which those rules hopefully reflect as much as possible, but that's it.
>> ^marbles:
@gwiz665
You’re talking about two different things. If society can decide what rights you have, then that means they are alienable. If society can grant you the right to life, then it can take it away.
Did the millions of dead civilians in Iraq have a right to life? Society decided that waging a war based on false evidence was more important than protecting human life.
Did Osama bin Laden have a right to life? The US Constitution says the government shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But society trumps the law.
It’s impossible for society to grant inalienable rights. They make rules. They sometimes grant you legal rights, but those are alienable. The right to life is inalienable. You don’t need society to make a law against murder to know it’s wrong. Humans in earlier societies had a right to life, but society willfully violated it. What has changed?



Who decides whether you have a right to life? Society?
Where does life come from? Where does our internal moral compass come from?

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^marbles:
No one decides. They’re inherent. They evolved in the human mind long before the organization of human society.
Okay, I just have to add, this claim re:property displays an absurd degree of historical illiteracy.
1) Nomadic human societies tend to use a possession scheme, where its yours if you have it.
2) As people began to settle land they started using a usufruct scheme where it's yours only while you maintain it.
3) As settlements and their governments became more powerful they created property in perpetuity to consolidate their own power.
Property, as you defend it, is the result of a statist powergrab.
If there exists an inherent set of human rights to things, history shows that to be by physical possession only.


And all this time you've been denying the concept of property exists. Like I've previously eluded to: Government force is not always consistent with liberty. And that's the point. Government force should always be consistent with liberty.

@marbles
They don't exist. No one decides if I have a right to life, but the society decides that I have a right to life within that society. It is essentially a house rule.

Life is a biological process.

Our internal compass is nature/nurture. We are taught most of it by our parents and can be molded when we are young, but some things are biologically "built in" through natural selection.

>> ^marbles:

No, you’re quoting “objectivism” for its absurdity like it has another meaning.

objective

>> ^marbles:

You have failed to make any argument that liberty is self-contradicting.

The ideology expressed by the video is self contradicting, calling it liberty does not change that.

Please re-read my original post (watch out for the quotes) for three arguments for self-contradiction.
3 ≠ 0

>> ^marbles:

Incorrect. Marxism does not share that premise.

Please enlighten us, on what basis does Marx argue that workers have the right to the results of their labor?

>> ^marbles:

Where does production come from? If it is a social construction then it would be self-evident.


Production does not come from anywhere, you might as well ask where blue comes from. Please rephrase your question so that it makes grammatical sense.

>> ^marbles:

Fact: Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits.


What mechanism in the physical world can be used to test this supposed fact?

>> ^marbles:

No, Liberty insists slavery is categorically wrong, you insist it doesn’t exist and never could.


You ideology allows the following:
1)You can sell what you own.
2)The product of my property is also my property.
Therefor : If your mother sold herself to me before you were born I own you.

If 1 is false, then your mother didn't own herself, and couldn't sell herself to me.
If 2 is false, then you have no right to the fruits of your labor on the basis of self ownership.
Which do you give up so that you don't support slavery?

>> ^marbles:

False. Social contracts are not by default based on protecting liberty.


But you said I was wrong BECAUSE disregarding property claims doesn't work in my current life. If you meant to actually make a point on some logical grounds, you should have.

You, not I, used my current social contract as evidence of the rightness of your philosophy. Now that I point out the stupidity of that argument, you claim not to have made it.

Pro-tip: Consider the consequences of your arguments before you make them.

>> ^marbles:

False again. If I produce something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.

If I touch something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.

I changed one word. Please, provide some proof that either of these statements is false, without, simultaneously disproving the other.

@marbles, save your breath. This is what they do. They love to pick apart your argument, twist your words and ultimately call you naive or stupid for having a completely reasonable belief that people should leave people alone.

If you keep debating them, they will continue to gang up on you, and eventually the personal attacks will come. Seriously, save your breath.

>> ^dgandhi:
The ideology expressed by the video is self contradicting, calling it liberty does not change that.Then you wouldn’t need to quote other ideologies to make that point.
>> ^dgandhi:
Please enlighten us, on what basis does Marx argue that workers have the right to the results of their labor?Don’t feign ignorance. Marxism is based on the collective's right to the individual.
>> ^dgandhi:
Production does not come from anywhere, you might as well ask where blue comes from.Production comes from nowhere. Thanks for clearing that up.
>> ^dgandhi:
What mechanism in the physical world can be used to test this supposed fact?There’s no test needed, it’s inherent to human life. If I build a net, then I rightfully own it. If I catch fish with my net, then I rightfully own the fish.
>> ^dgandhi:
You ideology allows the following:
1)You can sell what you own.
2)The product of my property is also my property.
Therefor : If your mother sold herself to me before you were born I own you.

If 1 is false, then your mother didn't own herself, and couldn't sell herself to me.
If 2 is false, then you have no right to the fruits of your labor on the basis of self ownership.
Which do you give up so that you don't support slavery?Liberty is self-ownership. If you believe someone else can own you (e.g. selling yourself), then you don’t believe in liberty. Nice try though.
>> ^dgandhi:
But you said I was wrong BECAUSE disregarding property claims doesn't work in my current life. If you meant to actually make a point on some logical grounds, you should have.

You, not I, used my current social contract as evidence of the rightness of your philosophy. Now that I point out the stupidity of that argument, you claim not to have made it.
No, I said you were wrong regardless of whether or not you accepted my property claims. And your current social contract is meaningless if you decide to violate my liberty.
>> ^dgandhi:
If I touch something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.

I changed one word. Please, provide some proof that either of these statements is false, without, simultaneously disproving the other.Production doesn’t come from anywhere, remember? How about you prove this is true: If I steal something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.

@marbles

How does this system protect your rights from those who would infringe on it, perhaps indirectly? Who arbitrates in disputes?

For example, I have a property with trees on it. Every fall I gather up the leaves in a big pile and burn them. Leaving aside wider environmental concerns, my neighbour tells me the smoke from my leaf pile is blackening his house. There is no benefit to me in not burning the leaves, so I tell him to get stuffed.

Your system is hypothetically great, but it falls down in the real world.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

@marbles
How does this system protect your rights from those who would infringe on it, perhaps indirectly? Who arbitrates in disputes?
For example, I have a property with trees on it. Every fall I gather up the leaves in a big pile and burn them. Leaving aside wider environmental concerns, my neighbour tells me the smoke from my leaf pile is blackening his house. There is no benefit to me in not burning the leaves, so I tell him to get stuffed.
Your system is hypothetically great, but it falls down in the real world.


It's not a system, it's a philosophy. Hopefully whatever system you subscribe to adheres to the protection of liberty.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
@marbles
How does this system protect your rights from those who would infringe on it, perhaps indirectly? Who arbitrates in disputes?
For example, I have a property with trees on it. Every fall I gather up the leaves in a big pile and burn them. Leaving aside wider environmental concerns, my neighbour tells me the smoke from my leaf pile is blackening his house. There is no benefit to me in not burning the leaves, so I tell him to get stuffed.
Your system is hypothetically great, but it falls down in the real world.

It's not a system, it's a philosophy. Hopefully whatever system you subscribe to adheres to the protection of liberty.


This is what they don't get. That it's NOT a system. Wasting your breath. I've been spinning my wheels with the same people on here for nearly 4 years.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
@marbles
How does this system protect your rights from those who would infringe on it, perhaps indirectly? Who arbitrates in disputes?
For example, I have a property with trees on it. Every fall I gather up the leaves in a big pile and burn them. Leaving aside wider environmental concerns, my neighbour tells me the smoke from my leaf pile is blackening his house. There is no benefit to me in not burning the leaves, so I tell him to get stuffed.
Your system is hypothetically great, but it falls down in the real world.

It's not a system, it's a philosophy. Hopefully whatever system you subscribe to adheres to the protection of liberty.

This is what they don't get. That it's NOT a system. Wasting your breath. I've been spinning my wheels with the same people on here for nearly 4 years.


Why the hostility? I asked a legitimate question.

As to your response, a system is essentially the application of a philosophy. My philosophy shapes my actions, and those actions when repeated for a given situation constitute a system. Thought without action is meaningless.

My system (such as it is) involves compromising the common good and individual liberty. It is a constant trade off between the good of the many and the rights of the few. Each case is weighed on it's merits and I make a decision based on that. In some cases, I favour individual liberty (e.g. I don't believe the "threat of terrorism" warrants onerous security measures) and in some cases I favour the common good (e.g. where I live you cannot have an open fire as a home heating source for clean air regs). Democracy allows me to have a say in how these lines are drawn. A lot of the time I don't agree with the decisions and there are cases where I believe that even a democratic majority does not constitute a moral mandate (slavery in the 1800's, gay marriage in the 21st century and so on).

So I will rephrase my question: given a situation where two parties acting within their rights infringe on the rights over others, how do you apply your philosophy here?

@ChaosEngine

What do you mean "within their rights infringe on the rights over others"?

You don't have the right to infringe on the rights of other people.

If you infringe on the rights of someone else, then they have the right to protect themselves with force.

e.g. Murder is morally wrong. Self-defense homicide is justified.

>> ^marbles:

You’re trying to argue semantics now.

In fairness, the entire video and discussion is an argument about the definition of "Liberty"; that's a textbook case of arguing semantics and that's what you're all doing.

>> ^NetRunner:

Personally my favorite natural right is the divine right of kings.

Seems to be pretty popular with our recent presidents, actually.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^marbles:
You’re trying to argue semantics now.
In fairness, the entire video and discussion is an argument about the definition of "Liberty"; that's a textbook case of arguing semantics and that's what you're all doing.


So if someone calls the sun the moon and you say "No, that's the sun", you're arguing semantics?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^marbles:
You’re trying to argue semantics now.
In fairness, the entire video and discussion is an argument about the definition of "Liberty"; that's a textbook case of arguing semantics and that's what you're all doing.

So if someone calls the sun the moon and you say "No, that's the sun", you're arguing semantics?


That's a really terrible comparison but, if it comes down to you and "someone" having different definitions of the words "sun" and "moon", then yes.

>> ^marbles:

@ChaosEngine
What do you mean "within their rights infringe on the rights over others"?
You don't have the right to infringe on the rights of other people.
If you infringe on the rights of someone else, then they have the right to protect themselves with force.
e.g. Murder is morally wrong. Self-defense homicide is justified.


That is exactly my point. At what point are you infringing on someone else's rights by exercising yours?

For example, do you have the right to smoke in a public place? Do you have the right to drink and drive? Do you have the right to dump toxic waste on your property if it's next to a river? Does a parent have the right to physically discipline their kids? At what point does physical discipline become abuse?

The world is filled with cases where you must choose the lesser of two evils. Some are trivial, some seem contrived, but when you have 7 billion people, almost every situation will come up eventually.

While we're on the subject, I perceive that my rights have been infringed upon. I have the right to protect myself with force. What if I am wrong? What if it's after the fact (i.e. my property was stolen)? What if I simply lack the force to back up my legitimate claim?

>> ^marbles:
Then you wouldn’t need to quote other ideologies to make that point.

When people know things about general subjects they tend to reference general knowledge to simplify conversations. If I had known at the outset that you are adverse to knowing anything but your sacred ideology I would have just called you a religious wing-nut at the outset and been done with it. At this point I'm in for a pound, and I'm going to make sure you have at least heard something other than you navel gazing nonsense before I am through with you.

>> ^marbles:

Don’t feign ignorance. Marxism is based on the collective's right to the individual.


Okay, that clarifies a lot. You are actually arguing against an absurdist straw-man of any philosophy but your own. Please, since you are so keen on sourcing references, take a look at the manifesto, and tell me where you found that bit.

>> ^dgandhi:
Production does not come from anywhere, you might as well ask where blue comes from.

>> ^marbles:

Production comes from nowhere. Thanks for clearing that up.


Nice selective editing, I like how you completely ignored that your question as stated made no sense.

Okay, if you want to pretend you are six, fine. NON-OBJECTS CAN'T BE CREATED, "production" is not an object, it's a concept, it has no physicality, just like the color blue it can't come/go to or from anywhere. If stating that fact tweaks your ideology then your position is weaker than I thought.

>> ^marbles:

There’s no test needed, it’s inherent to human life. If I build a net, then I rightfully own it. If I catch fish with my net, then I rightfully own the fish.

Yes you keep saying this, saying things does not make them so.

When I say something is a fact, that means that I can clearly demonstrate it. You have failed to even acknowledge that demonstrating your truth claims is relevant to their accuracy. Given your bizarre aversion, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is a fact?

>> ^marbles:

Liberty is self-ownership. If you believe someone else can own you (e.g. selling yourself), then you don’t believe in liberty. Nice try though.

So you own yourself, but you are not allowed to sell what you own? I'm going to need you to define own if you are going to use it like that.

>> ^marbles:

No, I said you were wrong regardless of whether or not you accepted my property claims. And your current social contract is meaningless if you decide to violate my liberty.

You realize that this whole discussion is displayed above right? You used my current property arrangement as an argument that your property ideal is right, that argument fails to differentiate between property and all the other things my social contract covers. You were sloppy, so just suck it up and state your case.

Of course I know that your case, clearly stated, falls in on itself, I'm beginning to think that you know it too.

>> ^marbles:

Production doesn’t come from anywhere, remember? How about you prove this is true: If I steal something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.


Since neither property nor theft have any meaning in the absence of social contract, all three claims are false because they require conditions to exist where they can not. This is not a problem for me, your problem is backing up the one of them you seem to think is true.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^marbles:
You’re trying to argue semantics now.
In fairness, the entire video and discussion is an argument about the definition of "Liberty"; that's a textbook case of arguing semantics and that's what you're all doing.

So if someone calls the sun the moon and you say "No, that's the sun", you're arguing semantics?

That's a really terrible comparison but, if it comes down to you and "someone" having different definitions of the words "sun" and "moon", then yes.


To borrow the metaphor, we're having a discussion that started from someone saying "the moon is made of cheese", and then when someone else says "actually, there's quite a dispute about what the moon is made of", and the first guy responds "no, it's settled, because that's what the definition of 'moon' is -- a big hunk of cheese".

I don't think that's a semantic argument. It's more like the opening salvo of an epistemological debate.

@marbles, dgandhi already more or less gave you the argument I was planning on making in response, but I do want to respond to at least a few things you said directly. Forgive me for taking them out of order.
>> ^marbles:
Re: Why should there have to be a victim?
How else is there a crime?

Violating the speed limit is a crime. There's no victim.

>> ^marbles:
Re: Who decides what natural rights are?
No one decides. They’re inherent. They evolved in the human mind long before the organization of human society.

I'm a human, and I have a mind. I have no earthly idea what you think natural rights are, or why I should care about them.

I have my own reasons for what I believe, and how I approach the concept of rights, and it's clearly different from yours. How can that be possible, if "natural rights" are wired into us?
>> ^marbles:

Re: No, this is what a philosophical argument is like. You take a concept everyone "knows" and thinks they understand, and then you try to test it with thought experiments and logic, to see if you can really come up with a rigorous definition for it.
That’s already been done Hoss, centuries ago. You can dissect it and come up with terms like “positive liberty” all you want, but it serves no purpose but to undermine liberty as a whole.

This is really the crux of the dispute in all your myriad conversations on this video. You seem to think anyone who asks you to think about what you're saying is just trying to trick you somehow.

The only thing we're trying to do is get you to broaden your perspective a little. We're being polite about the fact that you seem to think us evil (or perhaps just stupid) for believing what we believe, and we're trying to help you understand a little bit of why we think the way we do, and see that maybe we're not monsters after all...

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^marbles:
@ChaosEngine
What do you mean "within their rights infringe on the rights over others"?
You don't have the right to infringe on the rights of other people.
If you infringe on the rights of someone else, then they have the right to protect themselves with force.
e.g. Murder is morally wrong. Self-defense homicide is justified.

That is exactly my point. At what point are you infringing on someone else's rights by exercising yours?
For example, do you have the right to smoke in a public place? Do you have the right to drink and drive? Do you have the right to dump toxic waste on your property if it's next to a river? Does a parent have the right to physically discipline their kids? At what point does physical discipline become abuse?
The world is filled with cases where you must choose the lesser of two evils. Some are trivial, some seem contrived, but when you have 7 billion people, almost every situation will come up eventually.
While we're on the subject, I perceive that my rights have been infringed upon. I have the right to protect myself with force. What if I am wrong? What if it's after the fact (i.e. my property was stolen)? What if I simply lack the force to back up my legitimate claim?


The perils of human life. There’s always going to be conflicts where both sides feel they are within their rights. Hopefully you can resolve your dispute peacefully.

Your point basically supports those who argue that individuals in a “state of nature” would willingly come together to form a state and government.

>> ^dgandhi:
When people know things about general subjects they tend to reference general knowledge to simplify conversations. If I had known at the outset that you are adverse to knowing anything but your sacred ideology I would have just called you a religious wing-nut at the outset and been done with it. At this point I'm in for a pound, and I'm going to make sure you have at least heard something other than you navel gazing nonsense before I am through with you. Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority. And instead of addressing the concept directly, you hide behind vapid arrogance and resort to personal attacks. Bravo!
>> ^dgandhi:
Okay, that clarifies a lot. You are actually arguing against an absurdist straw-man of any philosophy but your own. Please, since you are so keen on sourcing references, take a look at the manifesto, and tell me where you found that bit. I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.
>> ^dgandhi:
Nice selective editing, I like how you completely ignored that your question as stated made no sense.

Okay, if you want to pretend you are six, fine. NON-OBJECTS CAN'T BE CREATED, "production" is not an object, it's a concept, it has no physicality, just like the color blue it can't come/go to or from anywhere. If stating that fact tweaks your ideology then your position is weaker than I thought.
I never said it was an object. Actually, I've previously said objects are only representations of property.

production
–noun
1.the act of producing; creation; manufacture.
2.something that is produced; a product.
3.Economics . the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.

So where does production come from again?
>> ^dgandhi:
Yes you keep saying this, saying things does not make them so.

When I say something is a fact, that means that I can clearly demonstrate it. You have failed to even acknowledge that demonstrating your truth claims is relevant to their accuracy. Given your bizarre aversion, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is a fact? I did just clearly demonstrate it. Care to prove it false?
>> ^dgandhi:
So you own yourself, but you are not allowed to sell what you own? I'm going to need you to define own if you are going to use it like that. And I’m the one that’s six? One argument you ignore the literal meaning, the next you cling to it. Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?
>> ^dgandhi:

You realize that this whole discussion is displayed above right? You used my current property arrangement as an argument that your property ideal is right, that argument fails to differentiate between property and all the other things my social contract covers. You were sloppy, so just suck it up and state your case. I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract? I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.
>> ^dgandhi:
Since neither property nor theft have any meaning in the absence of social contract, all three claims are false because they require conditions to exist where they can not. This is not a problem for me, your problem is backing up the one of them you seem to think is true. And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

>> ^NetRunner:
Violating the speed limit is a crime. There's no victim.I don't think speeding is necessarily a victimless crime. But prostitution is. Gambling is. What’s your point?
>> ^NetRunner:
I'm a human, and I have a mind. I have no earthly idea what you think natural rights are, or why I should care about them.

I have my own reasons for what I believe, and how I approach the concept of rights, and it's clearly different from yours. How can that be possible, if "natural rights" are wired into us?We are biologically programed to seek life. A newborn naturally suckles a nipple and instinctively holds his breath under water. These are not learned behaviors. We are entitled to life. Property is an extension of life. It’s the representation of the inherent right to control the fruits of one's own labor. Surely a prehistoric man believed he was entitled to control an uninhabited cave he found, an animal he killed or captured, or anything he built or created.
>> ^NetRunner:

This is really the crux of the dispute in all your myriad conversations on this video. You seem to think anyone who asks you to think about what you're saying is just trying to trick you somehow.Ok, I’ll bite. If you deny 100% self-ownership (i.e. the philosophy of liberty as described in this video), then that leaves only 2 other options. Option 1: Universal and equal ownership of everyone else (i.e. Communism) Option 2: Partial Ownership of One Group by Another (e.g. Feudalism) Option 1 is unachievable and unsustainable. Option 2 is a system of rule by one class over another.
>> ^NetRunner:
The only thing we're trying to do is get you to broaden your perspective a little. We're being polite about the fact that you seem to think us evil (or perhaps just stupid) for believing what we believe, and we're trying to help you understand a little bit of why we think the way we do, and see that maybe we're not monsters after all...LOL@“We're being polite”

Why are you talking in “we” and not “I”? And if it makes you feel better by putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head, then fine. But that's not why I dismissed your claim that this is only the “objectivist/libertarian definition of liberty”.
I think the crux of the problem is you like to label everything instead of just accepting it for what it is. Political issues and figures are full of delusions and deceptions. You do yourself a disservice by putting everything into one ideological box or another. I know plenty of “libertarians” that don’t have a problem with the patriot act and plenty of “progressives” that don’t have a problem with the cold-blooded murder of OBL. The political false dichotomy left/right survives because of people like you and, ironically, the guy warning about black and white thinking.

>> ^marbles:

I don't think speeding is necessarily a victimless crime. But prostitution is. Gambling is. What’s your point?


My point is victimhood isn't part of what constitutes a crime. My larger point is you're constantly using "is" when what you mean to say is "should be". A crime is a violation of law. You may believe that there shouldn't be laws against activities that don't have a particularized victim, but that doesn't mean prostitution isn't a crime, it means you think it shouldn't be a crime.

It's the difference between telling someone "I am the richest man in the world," and "I should be the richest man in the world."

>> ^marbles:
We are biologically programed to seek life. A newborn naturally suckles a nipple and instinctively holds his breath under water. These are not learned behaviors. We are entitled to life. Property is an extension of life. It’s the representation of the inherent right to control the fruits of one's own labor. Surely a prehistoric man believed he was entitled to control an uninhabited cave he found, an animal he killed or captured, or anything he built or created.

So anything you feel entitled to, you're entitled to?

Moreover, primitive man had lots of impulses -- rape women that were caught their fancy, steal from people too weak to stop them, kill people they didn't like, etc. Then you get to the more grand delusional impulses, like "I speak for the Sun god, so do as I say or he'll burn you for eternity after you die".

The feeling of entitlement to enclose and deny the use of portions of nature to others likely only came about after agriculture, and even then largely in the form tribal land ownership, not individual ownership.

>> ^marbles:
Ok, I’ll bite. If you deny 100% self-ownership (i.e. the philosophy of liberty as described in this video), then that leaves only 2 other options. Option 1: Universal and equal ownership of everyone else (i.e. Communism) Option 2: Partial Ownership of One Group by Another (e.g. Feudalism) Option 1 is unachievable and unsustainable. Option 2 is a system of rule by one class over another.

It seems to me that there's a lot more than 2 options. Over here in my way of seeing the world, property is just a social convention. I am my body, I don't merely own it.

Ownership is meaningless when there's no one else around. Ownership is meaningless if there's no societal impetus to adhere to the convention of property.

So on the score of "self-ownership", I mostly think your relationship to your body is qualitatively different from the relationship to inanimate objects you might acquire through labor or other economic interactions. Taking my property is stealing, taking my body is kidnapping. Damaging property isn't the same as violent assault on a person. Trespassing is not equivalent to rape.

>> ^NetRunner:
The only thing we're trying to do is get you to broaden your perspective a little. We're being polite about the fact that you seem to think us evil (or perhaps just stupid) for believing what we believe, and we're trying to help you understand a little bit of why we think the way we do, and see that maybe we're not monsters after all...>> ^marbles:
LOL@“We're being polite”
Why are you talking in “we” and not “I”? And if it makes you feel better by putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head, then fine. But that's not why I dismissed your claim that this is only the “objectivist/libertarian definition of liberty”.
I think the crux of the problem is you like to label everything instead of just accepting it for what it is. Political issues and figures are full of delusions and deceptions. You do yourself a disservice by putting everything into one ideological box or another. I know plenty of “libertarians” that don’t have a problem with the patriot act and plenty of “progressives” that don’t have a problem with the cold-blooded murder of OBL. The political false dichotomy left/right survives because of people like you and, ironically, the guy warning about black and white thinking.


I used the pronoun "we" because I think that paragraph was descriptive of several of the people who engaged with you here, not just me.

I think you misunderstand my meaning when I labeled it as being "the objectivist/libertarian definition of liberty", I'm mostly just pointing out that the definition you're presenting is just one view of the concept, and not the defining conception of liberty. I'm not pigeonholing it and dismissing it, I'm just saying that the proper phrasing here is "This is what liberty is to me", not "This is what liberty is, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong".

My view of liberty is no less valid than yours, and if you assert that it is invalid without demonstrating even a rough working knowledge of what I (or even liberals generally) actually believe, then it's you who's pigeonholing and dismissing things, not me.

As far as "the guy warning about black and white thinking", I'm mostly just in favor of thinking. It seems to me that if you go around believing that there are some simple, arbitrary rules that govern all of human morality, and refuse to entertain any skeptical critique of the nature or validity of those rules, then that's not thinking.

>> ^marbles:

Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority.

This is your premise, it is also your conclusion. You have failed to demonstrate it at all. You have not made an argument. You have simply made a flurry of self contradicting statements, and insisted that they are true, and that any counter argument is false by definition. Do you really expect anybody to take you seriously?

>> ^marbles:

I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.


Marx advocated only the abolition of capital, not of workers rights to what they produce, he believed that capitalism had already destroyed that right:

>> ^Karl_Marx:

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing
the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a
man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork
of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the
property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of
property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to
abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent
already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.


>> ^marbles:

the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.
So where does production come from again?



To restate: where does the producing of articles having exchange value. come from

Lets see, how many ways can I interpret this?

1) Where do produced items come from : They are made of other things + energy, conservation of M/E
2) Where does the idea of production come from : The social contract of market societies
3) Where does the exchange value of objects come from : Somewhat arbitrary cultural valuation
4) ??? : what you secretly mean probably goes here, how about cluing us in?

>> ^marbles:

I did just clearly demonstrate it.

Where?

>> ^marbles:

Care to prove it false?

State your case and I'll give it a whirl.

>> ^marbles:
Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?

Because the logical consistency of your ideology depends on the ability to bootstrap a property system with the ownership (as in what they word usually means) of self. Dispensing with that when it gets inconvenient makes the whole thing fall apart.

Without actual self ownership, you have no logically necessary ownership claim to the value produced by self, and so you can not build you system on property only. You must start adding more first principles in order to get there. If libertarians have been purposely obfuscating their ideology as you claim, then they have been hiding the weakness in their argument, and making a false case.

I take most libertarians at there word that they actually meant what they said. Your position now significantly diverges from that put forth in the video, and requires you to make a different argument to bootstrap your personal libertarian-derived view.

What new first principle are you introducing to bootstrap ownership from only figurative ownership of self?

>> ^marbles:

I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract?

You used its existence as an argument. You want to back peddle and say you didn't mean it? Then do so.

>> ^marbles:

I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.

And then, as an example, argued that I was wrong because what I suggested would not work in my property arrangement, read the transcript.

>> ^marbles:

And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

possession ≠ fee-simple

Possession is fact, who has current physical control of a thing is not an issue for philosophy, but only of physicality. If I hold a pen in my hand I possess it, irrespective of any ownership claims on the pen. To take the pen from me without my consent requires the initiation of actual physical force against me, based on the physics.

If you own the pen, I don't have to interact with you in any way to use it, or take it home with me. There is no way to know if you own the pen, or if anybody does.

There is no demonstrable physical consequence of fee-simple property, possession, on the other hand in a matter of facts. My acceptance of both the fact and historical relevance of possession, does not get you within miles of fee-simple.

As much as I agree and disagree with various parts of this conversation, I still enjoyed the video as a basis for a philosophical discussion. Reality, I believe is far more complex than this video portrays - but somewhere along the spectrum of complexity, it is fair to say that liberty begins to dissipate.

>> ^braindonut:

As much as I agree and disagree with various parts of this conversation, I still enjoyed the video as a basis for a philosophical discussion. Reality, I believe is far more complex than this video portrays - but somewhere along the spectrum of complexity, it is fair to say that liberty begins to dissipate.


Fair enough. I probably did a poor job arguing some positions, but that's ok. I got tired after @NetRunner would continue to argue absurdities and @dgandhi recognizes something as axiomatic (ie self-evident,obvious), but wants it "demonstrated" outside of reality.

@marbles "axiom" is the smartypants word for "assumption". This video starts with an axiomatic assertion of property that's not incontestably true.

Put more simply, it's not a proof that property is right, it's a description of a moral framework that's derived from the assumption that property is right.

It's definitely not an answer to people who raise legitimate questions about the morality of property itself, and who vehemently disagree with the idea that "liberty" must be subservient to the doctrine of property.

@NetRunner

Just to be clear then, I am wrong to "assume" that the only person that has a right to what I produce is myself?

>> ^marbles:

Just to be clear then, I am wrong to "assume" that the only person that has a right to what I produce is myself?


Yes.

Or more accurately, I think if you're trying to convince someone else to think you've got the right to anything, saying "I have a right to X because I assume I have the right to X," won't get you very far.

>> ^marbles:
I am wrong to "assume" that the only person that has a right to what I produce is myself?


Conservation of M/E means that you can't create, only rearrange. So to even begin to asses such a position it is necessary to clarify what forces are morally relevant, and how much change is "production"? And then, of course, to explain why we should assume that some forces (only human, I'm guessing) moving things makes them "property", when nothing about the physical world implies any such relationship exists at all.

If you can pull matter out of the aether, you might be able to fashion some sort of internally consistent ideology around that, but since you can't, your just banging your head against physics demanding that it is so.

Saying that we accept an absurdity as a social convention is simple enough, but to demand, despite all evidence, that it is true is unbelievable foolishness.