Responses, broken down by person to whom I am responding.
From: "Jerry Mitchell" <jmitch12@tampabay.rr.com>
This was more or less explained by Damien Broderick (this is what I get for
opening this discussion on a list with a whole lot of really bright people), but
basically you're 'stealing' property which belongs to everyone. It's more or
less analogous to you staking a claim to all or part of a local city park. It's
considered to be common to all (and this idea is very old, it shows up in the
old testament) and the rich are considered to have taken more than their share.
>Property is theft? How can anything be "stolen" from anybody when no-one can
own anything?
No, private property isn't a system, but it's part of a philosophical/political
system. Private property doesn't exist in nature, as such, but is a concept
created by humans. It's a tool, as is philosophy, economics, politics, etc.
They're all tools we created to more easily gain some goals. Should the tools be
more important that actual people? No, I don't think so. But then, what I think
isn't the issue, really.
>Private property isnt a "system" as your implying... Its the right to life ,
made concrete.
You're equating a human construct (the idea of private property) with a physical
law of nature (gravity) and then you call this nonsense? Also, I never said the
universe was subjective, just that 1) There are a whole lot of questions to
which there are no definitive/universally accepted answers, despite what some
people assume, and 2) See my answer to Samantha's 1st reply about reality.
>You premise here is that standards are not objective. I havent met a person yet
that doesnt follow the standard of gravity. I >can sum up this nonsensical line
of thinking this way. If you want to say that the universe is subjective, then
you just tried to >make an objective statment about the universe. Naturally this
is self contridictory.
From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
You seem to assume something I don't think is true, that an objective reality
exists (which I think is true) AND that we all 'know' what it is (which I don't
think is true). Reality may be 'objective' in some sense, but people's personal
reality IS subjective. The best we can do is trust our senses to be correct and
try to keep getting closer to aligning our perceptions with the outside world.
What do I mean? An atheist and a fundamentalist Christian watching a human birth
(for example) are going to perceive 2 separate things. One is going to see a
'miracle' proving God's gifts (or some such) and the other is going to see a
'perfectly natural' event. Now, did the same thing actually occur? Yes, but
you'd have to be outside and above them (and the rest of us) to know what.
Since they go into the events with different beliefs, they're going to
process what they see differently (they'll focus on different parts, making one
thing more important that another, labeling them differently,etc.) Now, will
each of them think THEY have the answer, and (probably) that the other is
mistaken in their interpretation of events? Yes. Who's right? I'd set forth my
own answer and why, but it's not relevant. The point is that you can talk about
the event, and you're going to get 2 people who 'saw' the same thing, but come
nowhere near close to the same explanation. Is reality objective? You get to
decide that one for yourself, and no one else. (Of course, my answer there gives
away my own opinion, I think)
>objective reality to fall back on to reach agreement.
Again, you're assuming the answer in your response. Why would I have to admit
anything, since 'admit' implies you already have the answer and I'm either
incapable of seeing it or lying? If a person doesn't believe something to be
true, why should they 'admit' to it? Thievery implies that it was rightfully
theirs, and what I'm pointing out is there is at least one consistent philosophy
which says it wasn't.
>Being required to do service for others without pay or compensation or choice
is as close to being enslaved as I want to >go. At the least you would have to
admit this is thievery of another's time, energy and resources.
By the justice notions of a large number of people, actually. A whole lot of
people think we all owe something to the society in which we live, since they
see us as getting value from it. Where you're reared is largely not something
over which you have control, and tell me that living in the U.S. doesn't confer
material benefits over any 3rd world country (Yes, I realize I'm assuming
material benefits are good)
>But by what notions of justice? This itself is a much more prejudicial and
questionable use of words than what you are >calling me (and libertarians
generally) on.
If you're asking me, personally, Yes. But, then I'm not talking about me.
>So if he has no right to it but you are forced by government to comply anyway
then your rights have been violated. Yes?
No, it's not pointless, it IS the point. My point is, and has been, that you
start from a place different from where others start, and then complain they
don't wind up in the same place. Why did I say Christ and not Krishna? Because
I'm from the U.S., meaning I've got different basic ideas that would someone
from India. Again, there's my point.
>Sure. By that basic assumption Christ was God. But then so was Krisna and
many others by the same logic. OK. It is a >pointless aside.
So, you're saying human nature is ALWAYS one way or another? Or that your
definition of human nature encompasses everything? Is your standard of helpful
the same as a Christian Scientist's? Why or why not? What do you mean by best
ways? You don't need absolutes, but you and I had better agree on how to judge
something before discussing it, don't you think? And, what happens when you're
'rights' come into conflict with my 'rights'? Who judges fairly? How, by what
standard? What if you and I don't agree?
>But that doesn't mean that within a context one can say nothing at all is
certain. Human beings are creatures with certain >basic nature and
characteristics. In the context of human beings there are ways of treating them
that are more or less
>helpful. I will only argue that libertarian values are more helpful than most
when construing the best ways of humans >inter-relating. I don't need absolutes
to make that case.
You're still dead, that's what I mean. If we can prevent that from happening, is
that not more desirable than fighting over who was right, afterwards?
>Meaningless? In the face of blatant human stupidity like that above it is
essential.
And yet, others would disagree with you. So, who's right? And, by what standards
do you gauge?
>I do believe that property in many realms of ideas, especially software, is
theft however. Or not exactly theft, but that applying >property notions to
software diminishes us and our abilities.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:35 MDT