|
Is Bill Gates a Greedy Bastard?
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:59 PM | Message # 421 |
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) you are forgetting that this theoretical fountain has an infinite supply.
When did we assume that?
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 10:59 PM | Message # 422 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (I_Guy) If the above still can't be justified, then we will have to say that no one owns anything, including themselves. But within such emptiness, people will recognize that this is a nonsum and decide that it is okay to do anything with anything we want because there is nothing to justify why not. But under this view there would be chaos and life would wipe itself out quickly with no balance (like the balance in wild nature), because it would be a free-for-all and all against all for everything.
That's what I'm trying to get at. If you're able to say that we own ourselves, then you should be able to say that we own the fruits of our labor. Even if it is just rearranging resources of the earth. I do agree that private property is an illusion but I believe it creates a system that benefits society. I'm writing this in a rush. Let me know of any holes the statements have.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 11:00 PM | Message # 423 |
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) If you're able to say that we own ourselves, then you should be able to say that we own the fruits of our labor.
This is an example of a slippery-slope fallacy to which Erik previously posted a link. You are assuming that because something is the case, then something else must inevitably and necessarily follow. But you are not providing any logical step to justify what follows. You're saying THIS then THAT without providing THAT because of SUCH. You must provide SUCH to THAT.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 11:00 PM | Message # 424 |
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (J-Breakz) Courageous: possessing or displaying courage The man is showing no courage when he is doing something out of fear. Generous: willing to give and share unstintingly. The rich is showing no form of generosity when the government is stealing money from the rich and giving it to the poor. I don't know how I can make that anymore clear. that's a non-factor. i'm proposing a form of society where there are no rich people and, subsequently, no poor people either. Quote (J-Breakz) Alright, so we can agree with something. Voluntarily-funded courts running under a polycentric law system would be able to enforce suing you. who funds these courts? Quote (J-Breakz) I believe society should no longer support that doctor, but I don't believe they have the justification to hurt him (that is what you mean by punitive consequences, correct?). A doctor should not be forced to work out of fear. i never said anything about hurting him. i am against the current prison system as well. i believe prison should be transformed into a place where we send people to be actively rehabilitated and people that have done something that will not be solved through rehabilitation (ie what the doctor didn't do, leading to someone's death) should be punished by losing their license (things of such grave importance, i feel, should most definitely require a license for that person to open their practice), getting fined, not being allowed to perform a specific job for an allotted period, etc. Quote (J-Breakz) When did we assume that? at the VERY beginning, when I_Guy first brought up the fountain lol
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 11:00 PM | Message # 425 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (I_Guy) This is an example of a slippery-slope fallacy to which Erik previously posted a link. You are assuming that because something is the case, then something else must inevitably and necessarily follow. But you are not providing any logical step to justify what follows. You're saying THIS then THAT without providing THAT because of SUCH. You must provide SUCH to THAT.
I'm using your logic, I shouldn't have to explain myself. if we have to assume that we own ourselves or else chaos will start then we have to assume we own the fruit of our labor or else chaos will start. What's the incentive for a man to build a house if someone else is just going to take that house away from him and live in it their self? Even socialists have an idea of personal property... which is pretty much just private property.
Quote (eboyd) that's a non-factor. i'm proposing a form of society where there are no rich people and, subsequently, no poor people either.
Okay, forcing money out of the pocket of a middle-class man to another middle class man that needs it more than he does. Same shit. Also, what would be the incentive to work hard if people can't get more pay for their jobs? If everyone is going to be equal then it sounds like there would be equal pay right? hasn't this been proven inefficient? Quote (eboyd) who funds these courts?
voluntarily-funded. The owner(s) of the private property that wishes to be protected or protect visitors. Or if it's common property then the community that owns the land can pay for it.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 11:00 PM | Message # 426 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (eboyd) i never said anything about hurting him. i am against the current prison system as well. i believe prison should be transformed into a place where we send people to be actively rehabilitated and people that have done something that will not be solved through rehabilitation (ie what the doctor didn't do, leading to someone's death) should be punished by losing their license (things of such grave importance, i feel, should most definitely require a license for that person to open their practice), getting fined, not being allowed to perform a specific job for an allotted period, etc.
Your being an authoritarian. Aren't you against that? If people would just boycott him then he wouldn't be able to support himself and he would be forced out of being a doctor. Quote (eboyd) at the VERY beginning, when I_Guy first brought up the fountain lol
Oh ok, well this is what would happend: A person find the fountain of youth. Sells it at a very high price that many people can't afford. A company hears about this and is willing to pay the amount he's asking for. The company will then have scientists to study the drink so then the company will be able to mass produce it. After they learn how to mass produce it they sell it on the market for a cheaper but still high price. Other companies see the money they can be making on this fountain of youth drink, so they buy some of the drink and put in research on how they can mass produce it as well. The competition then significantly lowers the price and the people are able to afford it. bam. ^^Well that's in the world I envision. What would most likely happen in america is someone would patent the drink but I'm against patents and so are many other people who share my political beliefs.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 11:00 PM | Message # 427 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) I shouldn't have to explain myself.
Yes you should. That's how you prove that you understand how your statements are logically justified. You have yet to complete the step between self-ownership and product-ownership. You still haven't justified how a man can take something that he has no right to and make it his own just because he worked on it. Quote (J-Breakz) chaos will start
Not necessarily. You now need to justify why chaos would start. (Given, it may start in the current state of the world b/c it is conditioned to this particular system, but starting from the bottom and beginning of civilization, how and why would chaos start?) Quote (J-Breakz) What's the incentive for a man to build a house if someone else is just going to take that house away from him and live in it their self?
We're focusing on the entrinsic. Incentive is not an intrinsic factor, it is a manufactured factor. But within the manufactored factors, ideally, everyone would have to understand that what is in use by another person is not available to them. What isn't in use is available to them. That's how Native Americans lived for centuries by the way. That's why it blew their mind when Europeans cam along and started taking land. The natives couldn't understand what the hell the Europeans meant by "ownership." The natives had no conceptualization of ownership. They only understood usership. And they lived in peace for a long time by it. Quote (J-Breakz) A person find the fountain of youth. Sells it at a very high price that many people can't afford. A corporation hears about this and is willing to pay the amount he's asking for. The corporation will then have scientists to study the drink so then the corporation will be able to mass produce it. After they learn how to mass produce it they sell it on the market for a cheaper but still high price.
Other companies see the money they can be making on this fountain of youth drink, so they buy some of the drink and put in research on how they can mass produce it as well. The competition then significantly lowers the price and the people are able to afford it. bam.
You are neglecting the fact that you have in no way justified how a particular someone has the right to the fountain in the first place.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 11:00 PM | Message # 428 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (I_Guy) Yes you should. That's how you prove that you understand how your statements are logically justified. You have yet to complete the step between self-ownership and product-ownership. You still haven't justified how a man can take something that he has no right to and make it his own just because he worked on it.
Animals have a right to everything that is available to them, explain why they wouldn't. Do animals eat fruit that they don't have a right to eat? Sorry I'm confused. But if I'm correct and all animals have a right to everything that is available to them then everybody has a right to all things, yeah? So if I were to build a house then anyone can live in it because they have a right to it, regardless of the fact that I took the time to build the house and they did nothing to help. Would this be correct? I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Quote (I_Guy) And they lived in peace for a long time by it.
Not from what I have learned. I have black foot indian blood in my veins and i have learned about them out of boredom. They were vicious people that would fight other tribes and drive them away from their land. Boys would have to gain respect by killing the tribes enemies or stealing horses. I've read of more violent tribes, as well.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 11:01 PM | Message # 429 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (I_Guy) But within the manufactored factors, ideally, everyone would have to understand that what is in use by another person is not available to them. What isn't in use is available to them.
Alright, I accidentally skipped over this. But why would people have to understand that? They have just as much right to the house as the person who built it, correct?
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 11:01 PM | Message # 430 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) Animals have a right to everything that is available to them, explain why they wouldn't. Do animals eat fruit that they don't have a right to eat? Sorry I'm confused. But if I'm correct and all animals have a right to everything that is available to them then everybody has a right to all things, yeah? So if I were to build a house then anyone can live in it because they have a right to it, regardless of the fact that I took the time to build the house and they did nothing to help. Would this be correct? I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.
No they have no "right". They have the ability to do so, so they do so. But it's important to keep in mind that they are only consuming that which honors their right to life and that only. They have a right to life, but they do not have a right to the earth by extension (because everything else on the earth has a right to life). They consume the earth simply as an unfortunate byfactor of the right to life. Additionally, the system is symbiotic. The problem is that humans exploit the symbiotic relationship of the earth. Quote (J-Breakz) Not from what I have learned. I have black foot indian blood in my veins and i have learned about them out of boredom. They were vicious people that would fight other tribes and drive them away from their land. Boys would have to gain respect by killing the tribes enemies or stealing horses.
I've read of more violent tribes, as well.
To be honest, yes, some tribes were violent. But this was intertribal. But what's important is that within each tribe they were peaceful with each other as individuals. Some more primitive tribes were definitely hostile to other tribes. But the most sophisticated tribes (also being the tribes most famous) such as Cherokees or Navajos were for the most part peaceful. But all tribes didn't really have a conceptualization of ownership like we do.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 11:01 PM | Message # 431 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) Alright, I accidentally skipped over this. But why would people have to understand that? They have just as much right to the house as the person who built it, correct?
Not if the person who built it is there to use it first. (but remember though, this is within our manufactored values, it's not intrinsic, you are confusing the two)
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 11:01 PM | Message # 432 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
"A modern myth is that some societies, notably Native American ones, appeared to exist without the concept of personal ownership. Members of a society would feel free to take any objects they had need of, and expect them to be taken by others. Recently, however, researchers have started to question just how collectivist Native American societies really were. Citing earlier studies done by anthropologists and historians "who were able to interview tribal members who had lived in pre-reservation Indian society," they argue that in fact, "most if not all North American indigenous peoples had a strong belief in individual property rights and ownership." [1] These researchers further assert that Native American collectivism is a myth originating from the first encounters with tribes who, because of their hunting-orientation "did not view land as an important asset", and indeed, did not have a private property system with regards to land. The collectivist myth was initially propagated by reporters and politicians who never actually had contact with Native Americans and then made into a reality by the collectivist property rights system forced on Indians by the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act." http://www.perc.org/articles/article802.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership#Native_American_View
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| J-Breakz |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 11:01 PM | Message # 433 |
|
Heads
Posts: 2162
|
Quote (I_Guy) Not if the person who built it is there to use it first. (but remember though, this is within our manufactored values, it's not intrinsic, you are confusing the two)
What does that have to do with anything. Another person can choose to live in the house if he wanted to while the person who built it is there to use it first. And what do you mean? We're talking about if a person owns the fruits of his labor.
livin life like some cheesy movie
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 11:01 PM | Message # 434 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) The collectivist myth was initially propagated by reporters and politicians who never actually had contact with Native Americans
Horse shit. Plenty of sociologists and anthropologists performed their studies in the late 1800s and early 1900s and they explicitly explain Native American society as it was in its original and natural form. I'm not going to argue whether there were questionable exceptions or not, because that may not be knowable. Quote (J-Breakz) http://www.perc.org/articles/article802.php
(This article lists small names as original sources.) Quote (J-Breakz) "A modern myth is that some societies, notably Native American ones, appeared to exist without the concept of personal ownership. Members of a society would feel free to take any objects they had need of, and expect them to be taken by others.
[citation needed] Quote (J-Breakz) Recently, however, researchers have started to question just how collectivist Native American societies really were. Citing earlier studies done by anthropologists and historians "who were able to interview tribal members who had lived in pre-reservation Indian society," they argue that in fact, "most if not all North American indigenous peoples had a strong belief in individual property rights and ownership." [1]
lol, the source is the article you linked.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Wednesday, 20/Jan/10, 11:02 PM | Message # 435 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (J-Breakz) What does that have to do with anything. Another person can choose to live in the house if he wanted to while the person who built it is there to use it first.
And what do you mean? We're talking about if a person owns the fruits of his labor.
You obviously don't understand that we are talking about first and second order values. If the two are mixed or confused, we will reach no conclusion. You have confused the two.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
