Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Owning something

yay842
Posts: 5,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 2:36:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What does it mean to own something?
30 Important Life Lessons
http://www.debate.org...
20 Terrifying Two-Sentence Horrors
http://www.debate.org...
20 Jokes That Only Geniuses Will Understand
http://www.debate.org...
Name One Song That Can't Match This GIF
http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 9:20:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:36:45 AM, yay842 wrote:
What does it mean to own something?

Be in possession of something that if taken from you without your permission, may be punishable by law.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
yay842
Posts: 5,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 1:53:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 9:20:25 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:36:45 AM, yay842 wrote:
What does it mean to own something?

Be in possession of something that if taken from you without your permission, may be punishable by law.

I know there is owning something on paper, but that's just in this place where everything is just based on legal terms. But what does it actually mean to own something, like an idea, an object, a person from a philosophical standpoint?
30 Important Life Lessons
http://www.debate.org...
20 Terrifying Two-Sentence Horrors
http://www.debate.org...
20 Jokes That Only Geniuses Will Understand
http://www.debate.org...
Name One Song That Can't Match This GIF
http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 2:22:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 1:53:41 PM, yay842 wrote:
At 11/16/2013 9:20:25 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:36:45 AM, yay842 wrote:
What does it mean to own something?

Be in possession of something that if taken from you without your permission, may be punishable by law.

I know there is owning something on paper, but that's just in this place where everything is just based on legal terms. But what does it actually mean to own something, like an idea, an object, a person from a philosophical standpoint?

Being the original person to claim possession of something, tangible or intangible.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 2:30:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 1:53:41 PM, yay842 wrote:
At 11/16/2013 9:20:25 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:36:45 AM, yay842 wrote:
What does it mean to own something?

Be in possession of something that if taken from you without your permission, may be punishable by law.

I know there is owning something on paper, but that's just in this place where everything is just based on legal terms.

That's all there is to it.

But what does it actually mean to own something, like an idea, an object, a person from a philosophical standpoint?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 3:55:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 1:53:41 PM, yay842 wrote:
At 11/16/2013 9:20:25 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:36:45 AM, yay842 wrote:
What does it mean to own something?

Be in possession of something that if taken from you without your permission, may be punishable by law.

I know there is owning something on paper, but that's just in this place where everything is just based on legal terms. But what does it actually mean to own something, like an idea, an object, a person from a philosophical standpoint?

I would tend to think that without legal protection, you can't really "own" anything.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 3:58:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:41:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Acquire by right -- which means, to obtain without force.

How many more people are going to have to tell you you're retarded?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 4:01:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 3:58:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:41:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Acquire by right -- which means, to obtain without force.

How many more people are going to have to tell you you're retarded?

Why would any more people tell him he's retarded? It's not only a factual question, but one of why and how someone could permit themselves to become that contemptuous or frustrated.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 4:02:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 4:01:11 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/16/2013 3:58:07 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:41:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Acquire by right -- which means, to obtain without force.

How many more people are going to have to tell you you're retarded?

Why would any more people tell him he's retarded? It's not only a factual question, but one of why and how someone could permit themselves to become that contemptuous or frustrated.

Force =3
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 4:11:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I ascribe to a somewhat utilitarian ethic, I guess. But I won't harm anyone for anyone else. Those little blows to the ego aren't anything very harmful, but are rather trying and that's what's necessary to snap someone from their delusory security. Again, we're all living in fear. Fear even brought me to what I am, but what I am is sensible. Am I wrong to take more than personal responsibility?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 4:18:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm neither contemptuous nor frustrated, but motivated. Sure, things get bleak for me every now and again, though.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 4:32:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 4:29:36 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
^ backpedal fail.

There wasn't any fail there, retard. I'm perfectly consistent. Go ahead and outline it.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 5:02:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:41:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Acquire by right -- which means, to obtain without force.

Ma Monkey: We own our mind, thoughts, feelings, emotions, experiences, and body, regardless of any legalities, that are, laws , and/or synonymously rights.

The notion of ownership, gets more obscure the farther it is from us and the more we share space.

Legalities beyond triviality, only exist insofar as they are en-forced, and "oh, oh"
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 6:00:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:36:45 AM, yay842 wrote:
Total Ownage

What does it mean to own something?

The Fool: I myself, have never really took too much thought to it. Perhaps my monkey knows something about this.

Ma Monkey: You're putting me on the spot, I can't just perform for you on your beck and call. Whenever you just feel like it.

The Fool: Well, monkey, I do own you, don't I?

Ma Monkey: To own something, is for something intimately linked as being a part of you, and have the ability to control it in some way.

Just like "to have" something is to own something in a way.

The Fool: Ok, Um I think?!?

Ma Monkey: It has to share some kind of contiguity, with you, in the sense that we own our body, limbs, mind, thoughts or Ideas, insofar as they are attached and under your control, in at least one way. By control I mean, have the possibility, and or ability, to act on it, or use it, or affect it.

This control, can be direct, indirect, helped by others, through others, shared and or even dependent upon others.

The Fool: So then, a firearm, can literally become an attached extension of your arm. And be used.

----->Ba-Bang.<----

<(89)

Ma Monkey: Exactimondo.. And just like you may lose something, you previously owned, and then find it again, it can be restored/or recaptured. And synonymously, we can "re-member" our information, thoughts or ideas.

The Fool: Not bad , for an off the "head" inquiry, monkey. Not bad at all.
For now I understand what it really means, to say, "that thing" has a mind of its own.

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 7:23:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:41:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Acquire by right -- which means, to obtain without force.

What does it mean to 'acquire' or 'obtain' something in that context? If I found myself in some undiscovered land, could I simply 'claim' the entire thing, no matter how large, as my own? And then be justified in any 'force' I used against anyone who stepped foot on it? What about a whole planet? It doesn't seem to make much sense.

And then, it seems impossible to build the idea of force into, as an integral part of, the concept of property; since force also relies on property to be meaningful. If I use force against someone that really means that I am using force against their property (even including their own body as something they own.)
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 8:15:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 7:23:26 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:41:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Acquire by right -- which means, to obtain without force.

What does it mean to 'acquire' or 'obtain' something in that context? If I found myself in some undiscovered land, could I simply 'claim' the entire thing, no matter how large, as my own? And then be justified in any 'force' I used against anyone who stepped foot on it? What about a whole planet? It doesn't seem to make much sense.

The original acquisition of land and resources is an interesting topic. Thomas Paine had some good points in Agrarian Justice. I think to claim land, one must improve it in some way for some purpose. One's right to something can't be interchangeable with everyone else's, so one must have more to lose than a potential. After that, it can be treated like any property.

And then, it seems impossible to build the idea of force into, as an integral part of, the concept of property; since force also relies on property to be meaningful. If I use force against someone that really means that I am using force against their property (even including their own body as something they own.)

I'm unsure of what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that what constitutes force is dependent upon what constitutes property, and so cannot establish it?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 8:50:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 8:15:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2013 7:23:26 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:41:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Acquire by right -- which means, to obtain without force.

What does it mean to 'acquire' or 'obtain' something in that context? If I found myself in some undiscovered land, could I simply 'claim' the entire thing, no matter how large, as my own? And then be justified in any 'force' I used against anyone who stepped foot on it? What about a whole planet? It doesn't seem to make much sense.

The original acquisition of land and resources is an interesting topic. Thomas Paine had some good points in Agrarian Justice. I think to claim land, one must improve it in some way for some purpose. One's right to something can't be interchangeable with everyone else's, so one must have more to lose than a potential. After that, it can be treated like any property.

I guess my larger question is; are you arriving at such details of property rights 'objectively' (ie, expanding deductively from first principles,) or in a more utilitarian fashion? Because I don't understand how the intricacies of property rights, which seem to be foundational to objectivism / libertarianism, follow in any way objectively from basic principles like a human having control of their own body.

And then, it seems impossible to build the idea of force into, as an integral part of, the concept of property; since force also relies on property to be meaningful. If I use force against someone that really means that I am using force against their property (even including their own body as something they own.)


I'm unsure of what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that what constitutes force is dependent upon what constitutes property, and so cannot establish it?

Yeah. Basically the definitions seem to be:
Violence: That which violates property.
and Property: That which is not obtained through violence.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 9:10:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 8:50:09 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/16/2013 8:15:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2013 7:23:26 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 11/16/2013 2:41:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Acquire by right -- which means, to obtain without force.

What does it mean to 'acquire' or 'obtain' something in that context? If I found myself in some undiscovered land, could I simply 'claim' the entire thing, no matter how large, as my own? And then be justified in any 'force' I used against anyone who stepped foot on it? What about a whole planet? It doesn't seem to make much sense.

The original acquisition of land and resources is an interesting topic. Thomas Paine had some good points in Agrarian Justice. I think to claim land, one must improve it in some way for some purpose. One's right to something can't be interchangeable with everyone else's, so one must have more to lose than a potential. After that, it can be treated like any property.

I guess my larger question is; are you arriving at such details of property rights 'objectively' (ie, expanding deductively from first principles,) or in a more utilitarian fashion? Because I don't understand how the intricacies of property rights, which seem to be foundational to objectivism / libertarianism, follow in any way objectively from basic principles like a human having control of their own body.

The bolded is a consequence, not a primary. The right on which all others are predicated is the premise that man has the right to his life. In answer to your question, I will refer to Ayn Rand's statements on the matter: http://aynrandlexicon.com...


And then, it seems impossible to build the idea of force into, as an integral part of, the concept of property; since force also relies on property to be meaningful. If I use force against someone that really means that I am using force against their property (even including their own body as something they own.)


I'm unsure of what you're trying to say here. Are you claiming that what constitutes force is dependent upon what constitutes property, and so cannot establish it?

Yeah. Basically the definitions seem to be:
Violence: That which violates property.
and Property: That which is not obtained through violence.

Violence (or force) is the initiation of physical compulsion against another human being. Property is that which is obtained without the imposition of force i.e., by mutual consent (trade) or one's effort. Does that answer your question?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 9:30:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 8:50:09 PM, sdavio wrote:
Yeah. Basically the definitions seem to be:
Violence: That which violates property.
and Property: That which is not obtained through violence.

My prior response was inadequate. Basically, property is that which is the obtained by theft - where theft is the obtainment of property without the owner's consent.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 9:31:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 9:30:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2013 8:50:09 PM, sdavio wrote:
Yeah. Basically the definitions seem to be:
Violence: That which violates property.
and Property: That which is not obtained through violence.

My prior response was inadequate. Basically, property is that which is not obtained by theft - where theft is the obtainment of property without the owner's consent.

derp
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 9:40:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 2:36:45 AM, yay842 wrote:
What does it mean to own something?

nothing really - except that the society in which you belong has temporarily agreed to acknowledge and protect your custody some material or idea.

It's really an arbitrary arrangement.... as a matter of fact, ethics is really just the standardization/codification of arbitrary desires. There are things we all want for ourselves, and if the ego stresses enough incumbency on that desire, we run around pretending like its a fact of the universe.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 9:49:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 8:50:09 PM, sdavio wrote:
Basically, property is that which is obtained under two conditions: it hasn't already been obtained; or, if it has, is given or traded by the willing consent of the owner. Property is not just a tautology i.e, predicated on 'not being' its violation.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 10:33:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 9:49:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2013 8:50:09 PM, sdavio wrote:
Basically, property is that which is obtained under two conditions: it hasn't already been obtained; or, if it has, is given or traded by the willing consent of the owner. Property is not just a tautology i.e, predicated on 'not being' its violation.

But you haven't given any positive definition to stop it from being such. Eg, all of your definitions imply that I am the 'owner' of Mars.

As for Rand's explanations, they all strike me as either utilitarian or pretty much arbitrary. I am still clueless as to how ownership, specifically ownership of something one is not in use of, necessarily follows from the right to one's own life. The argument Rand seems to posit is simply that any other system would not be conducive to life, which is essentially a utilitarian argument.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 10:36:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 9:49:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2013 8:50:09 PM, sdavio wrote:
Basically, property is that which is obtained under two conditions: it hasn't already been obtained; or, if it has, is given or traded by the willing consent of the owner. Property is not just a tautology i.e, predicated on 'not being' its violation.

So how do I "obtain" something? How can I tell if someone else has "obtained" an object- do I just have to rely on them telling me they have obtained it? Can I "obtain" as much unobtained stuff as I want? Can I obtain the air around me? If I can't, why can I obtain other natural resources? Can two people obtain the same thing?

Also, is already obtained stuff that is "owned" by people who came by that stuff by means that don't fall within your definition still owned by them? For example, is a handgun obtained on the black market still property? If it is not, can I "obtain" it and make it my property? What about property that exists due to historical injustice- e.g. legacy wealth earned on the backs of slaves? Is my family fortune not property since it was originally gained without willing consent?

Also, what is permissible in protecting my property? Can I forcibly restrain up to killing someone who tries take any piece of property, no matter how big or small? Can I have property without knowing it exists? If something has been obtained by me without my knowledge and someone takes that thing without my knowledge, is it still theft? If someone builds a living using property both they and I did not know I owned, do I own the living they built off of my property and if so I can I forcibly take it from them?

Also, can I ever gain property by force? Does property seized during war or seized due to violations of law still belong to the person it was seized from? If I save a person's home from burning or render a necessary service without their prior consent can I forcibly take property as compensation?

Does consent motivated by dire need- e.g. starvation still count as "willing?"

I don't know, I'm just not convinced property is so straightforward as all that.