Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Land can exist independent of ownership which is why your definition doesn't fit with reality. No, it can't. The ground is there, land never is. "Land doesn't exist" is a deliberately provocative statement which you insist on backing up with unique and ususual definitions of language. Of course it's deliberately provoctive. It's also completely true. If your objections now result in nothing more than elaborate word games designed to confuse the oppostion then your missing the point entirely and wasting everyones time. Word games? That's all this is - concepts. Concepts which match the real world = good. Concepts which don't match the real world = bad. A simple enough concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Why only interpersonally? Why can't two people, or more, work together in the use of defensive force? There are only individuals. Two people are still acting interpersonally. You don't get a magic extra entity just by counting individuals up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 There are only individuals. Two people are still acting interpersonally. You don't get a magic extra entity just by counting individuals up. Doesn't that make all action interpersonal? In which case we go back the question which asks, can the use of force be defensive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) Doesn't that make all action interpersonal? In which case we go back the question which asks, can the use of force be defensive? You should now have the answer to your "defense" question. Is defending your home interpersonal defence? Edited January 31, 2010 by Injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) No, it can't. The ground is there, land never is. The term land doesn't imply ownership though. Its obvious why you choose to use the word land over other more suitable alternatives such as 'property' or 'boundaries'. Its because "land doesn't exist" is a trap designed to draw the conversation away from the substance and on to the semantic. You're filibustering. Edited January 31, 2010 by chefdave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 You should now have the answer to your "defense" question. Is defending your home interpersonal defence? It can't be defended otherwise, unless it is interpersonal, so we either have interpersonal defence or the home belongs to no one. How else can we have property rights without interpersonal defence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) The term land doesn't imply ownership though. Its obvious why you choose to use the word land over other more suitable alternatives such as 'property' or 'boundaries'. Its because "land doesn't exist" is a trap designed to draw the conversation away from the substance and on to the semantic. You're filibustering. No, really. Check the OP and the title. As they are meant in those land doesn't exist. You've ******ed up your first reading, no worries. Just change. Edited January 31, 2010 by Injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 It can't be defended otherwise, unless it is interpersonal, so we either have interpersonal defence or the home belongs to no one. How else can we have property rights without interpersonal defence? Inerpersonal defence is when one person attacks another and they defend themselves. Is walking into your house a physical attack on you? Or is it just one guy wandering around where you don't like and you want to see an attack at that point as justified because you feel anxiety? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Inerpersonal defence is when one person attacks another and they defend themselves. Wasn't your comment earlier designed to establish that all action, between however many people is, by nature interpersonal. I don't see why it isn't redundant to make a distinction between interpersonal and otherwise. Does interpersonal in this context mean anything other than involving multiple people? Why make the distinction? Is walking into your house a physical attack on you? Or is it just one guy wandering around where you don't like and you want to see an attack at that point as justified because you feel anxiety? No, walking into my home is not a physical attack on me, I haven't said anything to suggest that it is. It's not that I want to see an attack as justified, it's that I want the right to lawfully exclude that person if I so wish. Is there anything wrong with that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Wasn't your comment earlier designed to establish that all action, between however many people is, by nature interpersonal. I don't see why it isn't redundant to make a distinction between interpersonal and otherwise. Does interpersonal in this context mean anything other than involving multiple people? Why make the distinction? Yes, I wished to point out that you can't defend a house, only attack abnother human being. No, walking into my home is not a physical attack on me, I haven't said anything to suggest that it is. It's not that I want to see an attack as justified, it's that I want the right to lawfully exclude that person if I so wish. Is there anything wrong with that? Yes, you have now made your attack into "lawfully exclude" It's still an attack. What you are doing is dissociating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Yes, I wished to point out that you can't defend a house, only attack abnother human being. Yes, you have now made your attack into "lawfully exclude" It's still an attack. What you are doing is dissociating. It's not an attack if it's justified, it's defensive. How else can we have property rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 No, really. Check the OP and the title. As they are meant in those land doesn't exist. You've ******ed up your first reading, no worries. Just change. There's nothing wrong with my reading, your use of the English language though is causing all sorts of problems. Pointing at the ground and saying 'land doesn't exist' is the equilavent of pointing at the sun or a mountain and saying that they too don't exist. Its clumsy way of conveying the point that ownership of these objects is morally questionable, there is a language problem here but its not the one you're highlighting. Land as property is a faulty concept, its amusing that you'll try every trick in the book just to avoid stating the obvious. (Don't worry, you're not alone). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 It's not an attack if it's justified, it's defensive. How else can we have property rights? Being able to justify an attack doesn't make it defence. You cna have property rights by allowing others to own property and them doing the same for you in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 There's nothing wrong with my reading, your use of the English language though is causing all sorts of problems. Pointing at the ground and saying 'land doesn't exist' is the equilavent of pointing at the sun or a mountain and saying that they too don't exist. Its clumsy way of conveying the point that ownership of these objects is morally questionable, there is a language problem here but its not the one you're highlighting. As I never said any such thing, why bring it up? Land as property is a faulty concept, its amusing that you'll try every trick in the book just to avoid stating the obvious. (Don't worry, you're not alone). You can't own land. The concept is pure 100% nonsense. That's all I ever said. Hardly my fault if context eludes you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Being able to justify an attack doesn't make it defence. You cna have property rights by allowing others to own property and them doing the same for you in return. Yes, but what we mean by allow others to have property is reliant on the threat of force. Property is that which will be defended with force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Yes, but what we mean by allow others to have property is reliant on the threat of force. Property is that which will be defended with force. It can't be. Think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 It can't be. Think about it. Because we don't know what will be defended, before it happens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 It can't be. Think about it. What is it then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 What is it then? Property rights cannot only exist because there is someone knocking about who is protecting them with superior force against all others - because that person must recognise property rights themselves without being subject to a higher force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 You can't own land. The concept is pure 100% nonsense. That's all I ever said. Hardly my fault if context eludes you. No, you said 'land doesn't exist'. This is a world away from claiming that ownership of the land is conceptual nonsense. If you believed that ownership of the air was impossible you wouldn't state that 'air doesn't exist' because its not the air thats at fault, its the relationship that humans force upon each other which makes some more equal than others. I'm just calling a spade a spade, insisting that the spade doesn't exist just leads us down a sematic cul de sac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 No, you said 'land doesn't exist'. This is a world away from claiming that ownership of the land is conceptual nonsense. Not in the context of the OP or the post I was responding to. Je- sus. If you believed that ownership of the air was impossible you wouldn't state that 'air doesn't exist' because its not the air thats at fault, its the relationship that humans force upon each other which makes some more equal than others. If their was a concept called "Air" whuich meant that air was divided up into little segments instead of being one indivisible mass I certainly would say air doesn't exist. I'm just calling a spade a spade, insisting that the spade doesn't exist just leads us down a sematic cul de sac. Not at all. It leads to clarity as the underlying assumption is brought into awareness, where it can then be properly debated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Property rights cannot only exist because there is someone knocking about who is protecting them with superior force against all others - because that person must recognise property rights themselves without being subject to a higher force. But property rights aren't designed for the good times, when we are all friends, it's there for when things turn ugly and we don't like each other any more. That's when we need to use force. Most of the time, I agree, we don't need the threat, but that is accepted and understood in all of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 But property rights aren't designed for the good times, when we are all friends, it's there for when things turn ugly and we don't like each other any more. That's when we need to use force. Most of the time, I agree, we don't need the threat, but that is accepted and understood in all of this. So you agree property rights are not granted by virtue of force? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_austrian Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 So you agree property rights are not granted by virtue of force? I'm not sure what you mean by granted here, but I would say they are upheld by force, even if most of the time we don't need to exercise that action because merely requesting privacy is sufficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 I'm not sure what you mean by granted here, but I would say they are upheld by force, even if most of the time we don't need to exercise that action because merely requesting privacy is sufficient. They can't be upheald by force because that requires that the person with the most force doesn't use it. if they don't use it, then they must have some other reason for following property rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.