Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Time To Reflect?


Recommended Posts

Then you are entitled to the fence, not the area it encloses. And I'd go further, you are entitled the the value of the fence if someone else breaks it, but not the eternal presence of it, unviolated.

Nope. You can use cosial obliquy, withdrawl of service contracts and a lot of other stuff without swinging a fist at all.

And you see - that field of yours? The crops on it you own. The space you don't. if someone comes and tramples them, then they obviously owe you. But that's ok, maybe they are tramping them to do something even more productive than you are, and you can be easily paid off once they are through. They don't owe you their permanent lack of presence in an area by default.

But only one case has any logical or moral justification for it. (i.e. taking made stuff is wrong, taking stuff that is just there isn't)

But it's arbitrary - there is nothing linking the thing you've made to you. It just is. OK, you moulded it to its current form. but just like the piece of land, there is no magical property that it has that "makes" it yours.

It's your magical definition: "if you make it, it's yours". I'm trying to understand why that special relationship holds, whereas claiming something else isn't equally as valid. They are both just claims on something that everybody, by birth, has access to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 461
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But it's arbitrary - there is nothing linking the thing you've made to you. It just is. OK, you moulded it to its current form. but just like the piece of land, there is no magical property that it has that "makes" it yours.

Yes, there is - your labour. If someone moves the item you made, then they are taking your labour away.

It's your magical definition: "if you make it, it's yours". I'm trying to understand why that special relationship holds, whereas claiming something else isn't equally as valid. They are both just claims on something that everybody, by birth, has access to.

Yes, everyone has access, but one person has used that access, which makes their claim of a higher order than others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there is - your labour. If someone moves the item you made, then they are taking your labour away.

Yes, everyone has access, but one person has used that access, which makes their claim of a higher order than others.

But your labour has been and gone. Doesn't show how this thing is magically linked to you.

You are creating a law - of possession - that doesn't apply in the natural world. To do so you require somebody to uphold that law - i.e. you require violence in order to maintain it in its unnatural state. You are creating the very thing that you detest - violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing that gives it away as not being correct is the anomolies it creates.

- How much labour do you need to input to make something "yours"?

- What if you make things but never use them?

- Is it immoral to use something with no apparent "owner" if you find it?

- Who is it that determines the price for an item - that field of corn, hasd a "market rate" of £1,000, however you were breeding a new strain that in a few years would have yielded tens of £1,000's.

- When somebody dies / moves away, who then "owns" their produce?

- etc.

Your premise that people "own" the fruit of their labour is flawed, in Injinland, as far as I can see.

Shouldn't the rule be "you own what you can defend"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But your labour has been and gone. Doesn't show how this thing is magically linked to you.

it wouldn't exist without your labour, your labour lasts as long as the thing made does.

You are creating a law - of possession - that doesn't apply in the natural world. To do so you require somebody to uphold that law - i.e. you require violence in order to maintain it in its unnatural state. You are creating the very thing that you detest - violence.

Nope, i am pointing out something which happens in the real world.

These aren't laws like gravity, these are laws like nutritional advice - if you do x you get result y. (But doing x is optional.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

it wouldn't exist without your labour, your labour lasts as long as the thing made does.

Nope, i am pointing out something which happens in the real world.

These aren't laws like gravity, these are laws like nutritional advice - if you do x you get result y. (But doing x is optional.)

No, what happens in the real world is keeping what you can defend. That is a universal law, and applies to the animal kingdom just as much as todays society, and every primitive society that has ever existed.

It's not necessarily fair, but it is the real world rule. Unless you can tell me why it is different?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing that gives it away as not being correct is the anomolies it creates.

- How much labour do you need to input to make something "yours"?

- What if you make things but never use them?

- Is it immoral to use something with no apparent "owner" if you find it?

- Who is it that determines the price for an item - that field of corn, hasd a "market rate" of £1,000, however you were breeding a new strain that in a few years would have yielded tens of £1,000's.

- When somebody dies / moves away, who then "owns" their produce?

- etc.

Your premise that people "own" the fruit of their labour is flawed, in Injinland, as far as I can see.

Shouldn't the rule be "you own what you can defend"?

Oh no, you own it even if it's stolen.

Everyone knows this at a gut level. If your car gets pinched you don't go "oh well, it has a new owner now."

Your objections to the philosophy are good ones, but they are based on the practicalities of implementation. This doesn't change the right answer, just makes it hard to apply. But you can say that about so many things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what happens in the real world is keeping what you can defend. That is a universal law, and applies to the animal kingdom just as much as todays society, and every primitive society that has ever existed.

It's not necessarily fair, but it is the real world rule. Unless you can tell me why it is different?

Being able to defend or not is a seperate issue to your logical ownership.

Those who do the defending like to conflate the two, as it allows them to claim all as their own. But really, no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no, you own it even if it's stolen.

Everyone knows this at a gut level. If your car gets pinched you don't go "oh well, it has a new owner now."

Your objections to the philosophy are good ones, but they are based on the practicalities of implementation. This doesn't change the right answer, just makes it hard to apply. But you can say that about so many things.

Not if you can defend it. You can defend it either by standing in the thiefs way, or applying a rule of law to stop them from doing so. Or get your mates to go over and "reclaim" it.

"Everyone knows this at a gut level" ; "This doesn't change the right answer"

Who are you to tell me, or anybody else, what the right answer is?

It may not be fair, but philisophically, it is much more right that you keep what you can defend. After all, isn't this what Darwin states? Survival of the fittest? Those with more power survive at the expense of the weak?

It seems much more natural to me. ature does not have any morals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if you can defend it. You can defend it either by standing in the thiefs way, or applying a rule of law to stop them from doing so. Or get your mates to go over and "reclaim" it.

"Everyone knows this at a gut level" ; "This doesn't change the right answer"

Who are you to tell me, or anybody else, what the right answer is?

I'm no one. It's the right answer and I am not relevent to that. Right answer stand on their own two feet.

Things you made are yours whether you can defend them or not. They are seperate issues. A child can build a sandcastle, that you can squish it beneath your foot without the child able to do anything about ti changes nowt. It's still the childs sandcastle. (And crushing it is evil, ofc.)

It may not be fair, but philisophically, it is much more right that you keep what you can defend. After all, isn't this what Darwin states? Survival of the fittest? Those with more power survive at the expense of the weak?

It seems much more natural to me. ature does not have any morals.

Yes, nature has morals. Where do you think we got them from?

Because the behaviours which follow from accepting the philosophy happen in reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Injinworld just a subset of Lepistaland, though?

In order to uphold the injinrule that you get to keep what you make, you need somebody to enforce that rule. (Note I don't necessarily disgree that it is a fine rule to employ). Getting somebody to enforce it is only the same as defending it. There will be a lot of disputes regarding ownership in injinland, and you will need somebody to decide who is right and wrong, according to the injinlaw.

In Lepistaland, there might be a clan somewheree employing the injinlaw, and all would be well. You could not, however, have somebody in injinworld just wanting to keep everything they have made to themselves, as it would be possible for an arbitrator to come along and give somebody else permission to build their factory on your crop.

Note that trade and cooperation are all perfectly possible and reasonable things to do in lepistaland, as are all the morals that you speak of that exist in injinworld.

edit: seset???

Edited by Lepista
Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Injinworld just a subset of Lepistaland, though?

In order to uphold the injinrule that you get to keep what you make, you need somebody to enforce that rule. (Note I don't necessarily disgree that it is a fine rule to employ). Getting somebody to enforce it is only the same as defending it. There will be a lot of disputes regarding ownership in injinland, and you will need somebody to decide who is right and wrong, according to the injinlaw.

In Lepistaland, there might be a clan somewheree employing the injinlaw, and all would be well. You could not, however, have somebody in injinworld just wanting to keep everything they have made to themselves, as it would be possible for an arbitrator to come along and give somebody else permission to build their factory on your crop.

Note that trade and cooperation are all perfectly possible and reasonable things to do in lepistaland, as are all the morals that you speak of that exist in injinworld.

edit: seset???

Na, nah.

These aren't rules like "do this or else" these are rules like "exercise and eat right or you'll get fat."

Certain behaviours lead to certain outcomes. All I am doing is outlining the behaviours you have to perfom in reality to get the outcomes. I don't need to mandate anything, reality already did that for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Na, nah.

These aren't rules like "do this or else" these are rules like "exercise and eat right or you'll get fat."

Certain behaviours lead to certain outcomes. All I am doing is outlining the behaviours you have to perfom in reality to get the outcomes. I don't need to mandate anything, reality already did that for me.

But there are. Your rule is "What you make is yours". There is nothing "right" or "natural" about it.

My "law" is that you keep what you can defend. This is universal, and applies to all living things. Us humans are living things, there is really nothing special about us.

If you want to keep what you make, there is nothing stoppping you. You may consider it your right. I am fine with that. It doesn't stop somebody taking it though. At the end of the day, your rule is only a moral judgement on what is right or wrong. My rule does not apply any mind process.

What does make us different to other species is that we can choose to apply certain rules though to our transactions, and enforce those rules on others. You want to enforce the rule that you keep what you make? that's fine. it doesn't negate the "keep what you can defend".

I would say your rule is exactly the "do this or else" kind of rule. Mine isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But there are. Your rule is "What you make is yours". There is nothing "right" or "natural" about it.

Yes, there is.

My "law" is that you keep what you can defend. This is universal, and applies to all living things. Us humans are living things, there is really nothing special about us.

You being able to keep what you can defend is an entirely different question to what you can create.

If you want to keep what you make, there is nothing stoppping you. You may consider it your right. I am fine with that. It doesn't stop somebody taking it though. At the end of the day, your rule is only a moral judgement on what is right or wrong. My rule does not apply any mind process.

Yes, ofc it does. Before any human does anything they have to think of it first.

What does make us different to other species is that we can choose to apply certain rules though to our transactions, and enforce those rules on others. You want to enforce the rule that you keep what you make? that's fine. it doesn't negate the "keep what you can defend".

I would say your rule is exactly the "do this or else" kind of rule. Mine isn't.

I don't want to enforce any such rule. I don't need to, reality already does it all for me.

All I am doing is pointing out what happens if you don't follow the rules that are already there and which you cannot break without consequence.

Analogy - I am telling you that you can't eat 20 doughnuts a day and stay thin. Your reponse is to say you can buy all the doughnuts you like.

You only get to choose between actions, not results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Analogy - I am telling you that you can't eat 20 doughnuts a day and stay thin. Your reponse is to say you can buy all the doughnuts you like.

So the real world equivalent to your analogy is

You can't take other stuff other people have made or else....

Link to post
Share on other sites

My analogy to your rule would be thus:

It is rude to swear in polite company, therefore you shouldn't do it.

It is a function of your perception of morality. It is no more or less moral than walking round naked.

Is it right to have slavery? I guess most people nowadays would argue not, however what is the highter moral authority that determines this? It's the rule of "keep what you can defend". Society has decide that this, along with murder, and stealing, is wrong. All well and good, in my book. Is there a fundamental reason why it should be so? Nope, it's what we as a society deem acceptable. Similarly your keeping what you make is only a judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You get poorer.

:)

That is blatently not true though, is it? I get richer at the expense of somebody else.

Whether society gets poorer really depends on whether I get better utility out of the said item than you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is blatently not true though, is it? I get richer at the expense of somebody else.

Whether society gets poorer really depends on whether I get better utility out of the said item than you do.

You get poorer relative to yourself if you did something worthwhile and didn't steal!

You can eat dougnuts or exercise. Onc eof them will get you fit and healthy. You can choose which action you take but you cannot choose the consequences.

Better to be a beggar now than a king of old.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, morally, isn't it better that somebody gets the most utility out of something that they can, whether it is made by them or not?

How moral is it to make something (thus denying somebody else the opportunity to make something from the same raw materials) then not to use it to its full potential?

That second home that you have, that you only use once every year for two weks? see, there's this local family, who can use it, and by doing so aren't using up any more natural resource to do so.

Stealing is irrelevant. Ownership in itself is theft, no? (sorry, tangent).

Link to post
Share on other sites

You get poorer relative to yourself if you did something worthwhile and didn't steal!

You can eat dougnuts or exercise. Onc eof them will get you fit and healthy. You can choose which action you take but you cannot choose the consequences.

Better to be a beggar now than a king of old.

Sorry Injin, what an airy fairy statement.

If it takes me less time to take something that it would have done for me to make the said equivalent item, then I have clearly got richer.

In what way have I got poorer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, morally, isn't it better that somebody gets the most utility out of something that they can, whether it is made by them or not?

How moral is it to make something (thus denying somebody else the opportunity to make something from the same raw materials) then not to use it to its full potential?

I didn't. I just asaid if you do, pay the market value to whoevers stuff you just destroyed.

That second home that you have, that you only use once every year for two weks? see, there's this local family, who can use it, and by doing so aren't using up any more natural resource to do so.

Stealing is irrelevant. Ownership in itself is theft, no? (sorry, tangent).

Why on earth do you think the family can't use your stuff? They can, they just have to pay up.

Only with the land delusion are they prevented from using things. Move to a pay as you go model and people can once more go anywhere they like. Luckily we've got CCTV absolutely everywhere these days to make it happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't. I just asaid if you do, pay the market value to whoevers stuff you just destroyed.

Why on earth do you think the family can't use your stuff? They can, they just have to pay up.

Only with the land delusion are they prevented from using things. Move to a pay as you go model and people can once more go anywhere they like. Luckily we've got CCTV absolutely everywhere these days to make it happen.

Why on earth do you think the family should pay up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.