Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Property

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 9:28:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/30/2010 10:50:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

I find unowned dirt. I plow a field and plant seeds. My field, my plants.

I dig a hole in the dirt and start extracting minerals from it. My mine and my minerals.

I fence off a bit of water and start feeding, breeding, harvesting fish inside it. My fish, my fish farm.

I plant a flag on a bit of dirt and declare myself to own everything as far as I can see. My inch of dirt and my flag, NOT MY EVERYTHING AS FAR AS THE I CAN SEE, contrary to what most governments seem to think when they plant a flag.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 9:41:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 9:28:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/30/2010 10:50:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:


I find unowned dirt. I plow a field and plant seeds. My field, my plants.

I dig a hole in the dirt and start extracting minerals from it. My mine and my minerals.

I fence off a bit of water and start feeding, breeding, harvesting fish inside it. My fish, my fish farm.

I plant a flag on a bit of dirt and declare myself to own everything as far as I can see. My inch of dirt and my flag, NOT MY EVERYTHING AS FAR AS THE I CAN SEE, contrary to what most governments seem to think when they plant a flag.

Water, dirt, air, seeds, fish--all of these are part of a larger system. They are not separated simply because you put a fence up. More specifically, let's say you section off part of a river and within your section take actions which affect the rest of the river, let alone the rest of the entire ecosystem.

Properties are not closed systems, everything inside your property is connected to everything outside. Your arbitrarily drawn line in the sand doesn't give you rights over everything outside of the line.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 9:45:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 9:41:01 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 6/14/2010 9:28:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/30/2010 10:50:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:


I find unowned dirt. I plow a field and plant seeds. My field, my plants.

I dig a hole in the dirt and start extracting minerals from it. My mine and my minerals.

I fence off a bit of water and start feeding, breeding, harvesting fish inside it. My fish, my fish farm.

I plant a flag on a bit of dirt and declare myself to own everything as far as I can see. My inch of dirt and my flag, NOT MY EVERYTHING AS FAR AS THE I CAN SEE, contrary to what most governments seem to think when they plant a flag.

Water, dirt, air, seeds, fish--all of these are part of a larger system. They are not separated simply because you put a fence up. More specifically, let's say you section off part of a river and within your section take actions which affect the rest of the river, let alone the rest of the entire ecosystem.

Properties are not closed systems, everything inside your property is connected to everything outside. Your arbitrarily drawn line in the sand doesn't give you rights over everything outside of the line.

Ragnar will say, "DUUUUHHHHRRRRR!!! TORT LAW, LULZ!!!!"
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 9:53:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 9:45:02 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 6/14/2010 9:41:01 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 6/14/2010 9:28:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/30/2010 10:50:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:


I find unowned dirt. I plow a field and plant seeds. My field, my plants.

I dig a hole in the dirt and start extracting minerals from it. My mine and my minerals.

I fence off a bit of water and start feeding, breeding, harvesting fish inside it. My fish, my fish farm.

I plant a flag on a bit of dirt and declare myself to own everything as far as I can see. My inch of dirt and my flag, NOT MY EVERYTHING AS FAR AS THE I CAN SEE, contrary to what most governments seem to think when they plant a flag.

Water, dirt, air, seeds, fish--all of these are part of a larger system. They are not separated simply because you put a fence up. More specifically, let's say you section off part of a river and within your section take actions which affect the rest of the river, let alone the rest of the entire ecosystem.

Properties are not closed systems, everything inside your property is connected to everything outside. Your arbitrarily drawn line in the sand doesn't give you rights over everything outside of the line.

Ragnar will say, "DUUUUHHHHRRRRR!!! TORT LAW, LULZ!!!!"

I see no reason to ridicule him for having a different opinion.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 9:55:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 9:53:39 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 6/14/2010 9:45:02 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 6/14/2010 9:41:01 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 6/14/2010 9:28:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/30/2010 10:50:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:


I find unowned dirt. I plow a field and plant seeds. My field, my plants.

I dig a hole in the dirt and start extracting minerals from it. My mine and my minerals.

I fence off a bit of water and start feeding, breeding, harvesting fish inside it. My fish, my fish farm.

I plant a flag on a bit of dirt and declare myself to own everything as far as I can see. My inch of dirt and my flag, NOT MY EVERYTHING AS FAR AS THE I CAN SEE, contrary to what most governments seem to think when they plant a flag.

Water, dirt, air, seeds, fish--all of these are part of a larger system. They are not separated simply because you put a fence up. More specifically, let's say you section off part of a river and within your section take actions which affect the rest of the river, let alone the rest of the entire ecosystem.

Properties are not closed systems, everything inside your property is connected to everything outside. Your arbitrarily drawn line in the sand doesn't give you rights over everything outside of the line.

Ragnar will say, "DUUUUHHHHRRRRR!!! TORT LAW, LULZ!!!!"

I see no reason to ridicule him for having a different opinion.

Not ridiculing. That's what he'll say, for real. Probably without the duhr, and probably without the caps, but that's what he'll say.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:00:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Can I wade into this?

Property rights, like any rights, are only verified through recognition. Your "right" to property only exists because I recognize this right. If I didn't recognize this right because, say, I didn't exist, or no one else for that matter, it's a completely useless gesture anyways, because how can you claim a "right" to something when there is no one else there to recognize such a claim.

How your rights claim comes about to recognition - through conflict, treatise or whatever - doesn't matter. So long as it is a right, and its recognized, it's pretty much there. Property lines are established through mutual recognition, aye.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:01:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
They are not separated simply because you put a fence up. More specifically, let's say you section off part of a river and within your section take actions which affect the rest of the river, let alone the rest of the entire ecosystem.
Then I commit a tort against owners of other parts of the river. The ecosystem has no rights, nor does it request them. Poejoe is a remarkable prophet.


Properties are not closed systems
I breathe. Does this make me any less an individual? If so, then since you breathe, I don't expect you to protest if I fire lead into your open system.

Your arbitrarily drawn line in the sand doesn't give you rights over everything outside of the line.
It gives me rights to what's in it, and it is not arbitrary-- it is tied to the nature of what I have created within i.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:02:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 10:00:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
Can I wade into this?

Property rights, like any rights, are only verified through recognition. Your "right" to property only exists because I recognize this right. If I didn't recognize this right because, say, I didn't exist
If no one but me exists nothing is in the way of my enjoyment of my property.

or no one else for that matter, it's a completely useless gesture anyways,
Useless to draw the line in the sand? Yes. Useless to mix my labor with it? No. The line in the sand is a demarcation, it is not what the property IS.

because how can you claim a "right" to something when there is no one else there to recognize such a claim.
Quite easily.
.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:03:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 10:00:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
Can I wade into this?

Property rights, like any rights, are only verified through recognition. Your "right" to property only exists because I recognize this right. If I didn't recognize this right because, say, I didn't exist, or no one else for that matter, it's a completely useless gesture anyways, because how can you claim a "right" to something when there is no one else there to recognize such a claim.

How your rights claim comes about to recognition - through conflict, treatise or whatever - doesn't matter. So long as it is a right, and its recognized, it's pretty much there. Property lines are established through mutual recognition, aye.

I actually agree with Volkov.

But may I ask what you think society should base it's property recognition over?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:06:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 10:01:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They are not separated simply because you put a fence up. More specifically, let's say you section off part of a river and within your section take actions which affect the rest of the river, let alone the rest of the entire ecosystem.
Then I commit a tort against owners of other parts of the river. The ecosystem has no rights, nor does it request them. Poejoe is a remarkable prophet.
You're convinced, then, that you have a right to every particle of anything that passes through your supposed property?
Properties are not closed systems
I breathe. Does this make me any less an individual? If so, then since you breathe, I don't expect you to protest if I fire lead into your open system.
Irrelevant and doesn't follow.
Your arbitrarily drawn line in the sand doesn't give you rights over everything outside of the line.
It gives me rights to what's in it, and it is not arbitrary-- it is tied to the nature of what I have created within i.
Doesn't follow.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:06:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 10:03:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
But may I ask what you think society should base it's property recognition over?

On this, I'd agree with Ragnar most likely - but I think its pretty obvious that what starts in my property doesn't end at the property line, and vice versa. There are claims you can make based on the geographical run-off of water on farms!

But, I'd have to do more research, really.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:07:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 10:02:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/14/2010 10:00:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
Can I wade into this?

Property rights, like any rights, are only verified through recognition. Your "right" to property only exists because I recognize this right. If I didn't recognize this right because, say, I didn't exist
If no one but me exists nothing is in the way of my enjoyment of my property.

or no one else for that matter, it's a completely useless gesture anyways,
Useless to draw the line in the sand? Yes. Useless to mix my labor with it? No. The line in the sand is a demarcation, it is not what the property IS.

because how can you claim a "right" to something when there is no one else there to recognize such a claim.
Quite easily.
.

I suppose in your mind only humans have rights?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:10:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In your opinion, is "I worked for this. Thus it is mine!" always more practical than "I need this more than you, thus it is mine"?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:12:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 10:06:25 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 6/14/2010 10:01:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They are not separated simply because you put a fence up. More specifically, let's say you section off part of a river and within your section take actions which affect the rest of the river, let alone the rest of the entire ecosystem.
Then I commit a tort against owners of other parts of the river. The ecosystem has no rights, nor does it request them. Poejoe is a remarkable prophet.
You're convinced, then, that you have a right to every particle of anything that passes through your supposed property?
No. If on my property I have built a harvesting device for such particles, however, those particles which I manage to harvest (or, in the event of interference by other rational actors with what I own, would have managed to harvest without their interference) are mine. Assuming no prior claim to their flow. And no one can trespass to get at the things currently passing through (trespassing being anything that can be reasonably demonstrated to interfere with the use I put to it).

Properties are not closed systems
I breathe. Does this make me any less an individual? If so, then since you breathe, I don't expect you to protest if I fire lead into your open system.
Irrelevant
Not irrelevant, you seem to disdain the individuality of property simply because it's somehow an "open system."

and doesn't follow.
If you don't claim an individual right not to be shot, what sort of right not to be shot do you claim?

Your arbitrarily drawn line in the sand doesn't give you rights over everything outside of the line.
It gives me rights to what's in it, and it is not arbitrary-- it is tied to the nature of what I have created within i.
Doesn't follow.
What doesn't follow from what?

On this, I'd agree with Ragnar most likely
What? How can you manage that and still favor taxes? :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:15:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 10:07:21 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 6/14/2010 10:02:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 6/14/2010 10:00:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
Can I wade into this?

Property rights, like any rights, are only verified through recognition. Your "right" to property only exists because I recognize this right. If I didn't recognize this right because, say, I didn't exist
If no one but me exists nothing is in the way of my enjoyment of my property.

or no one else for that matter, it's a completely useless gesture anyways,
Useless to draw the line in the sand? Yes. Useless to mix my labor with it? No. The line in the sand is a demarcation, it is not what the property IS.

because how can you claim a "right" to something when there is no one else there to recognize such a claim.
Quite easily.
.

I suppose in your mind only humans have rights?
If by "human," you mean "Rational animal," yes. If by "human" you mean "homo sapiens," then so far, but something else rational could always come along and show itself.

In your opinion, is "I worked for this. Thus it is mine!" always more practical than "I need this more than you, thus it is mine"?
Practical? Practicing what? If one wishes to practice suicide it is clearly more practical to steal a bullet than wait around and earn one.

If one wishes to practice an enjoyable life then rights become far more important to one, as they reciprocal needs :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:32:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm not arguing against the mutual recognition of property because it's an open system. I simply find the idea that you can do whatever you please to your little plot of an ecosystem absurd. Take the oil leak for example. (I assume) BP owns a little plot of ocean, but their actions are destroying an ecosystem. The ocean doesn't belong to them. Everyone and everything relies on working ecosystems and no matter what plot of land you own you don't have the right to take that away. That is my issue.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:50:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 10:32:09 PM, Yvette wrote:
I'm not arguing against the mutual recognition of property because it's an open system. I simply find the idea that you can do whatever you please to your little plot of an ecosystem absurd. Take the oil leak for example. (I assume) BP owns a little plot of ocean, but their actions are destroying an ecosystem.
More important, they are destroying coastal property. And other things that would be privatized in a civilized regime. :)

The ocean doesn't belong to them.
"The ocean" doesn't belong to anyone, although constituent parts can.

Everyone and everything relies on working ecosystems
define "working ecosystem."

In any case, I wonder, do you propose a solution to BP?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:54:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Doesn't a use theory of ownership make more sense.

Things should be owned by those who use them.

Things we are individually used should be individually.

Things that are collectively used should collectively owned.

Business should be owned by workers.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:56:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 10:54:22 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Doesn't a use theory of ownership make more sense.

Things should be owned by those who use them.

Things that are individually used should be individually owned.

Things that are collectively used should collectively owned.

Business should be owned by workers.

fixed
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 10:56:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"The ocean" doesn't belong to anyone, although constituent parts can.
If by "human," you mean "Rational animal," yes. If by "human" you mean "homo sapiens," then so far, but something else rational could always come along and show itself.

Oops.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

define "working ecosystem."

One capable of sustaining life.
http://www.actionbioscience.org...
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 11:09:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 10:54:22 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Doesn't a use theory of ownership make more sense.

Things should be owned by those who use them.
Utterly destroys long term investments.

Business should be owned by workers.
Wallbanger, destroys planning. Very few cooperatives succeed-- if cooperative were a normally viable model business ownership would have been pushed out of the market long ago.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
Somehow "Scientists say" is not very convincing, though I have had no interaction with dolphins.

In any case, remember, rights are reciprocal. Do dolphins reciprocate? :)

One capable of sustaining life.
I'm pretty sure no one's managed to abolish that yet. PREEEEEEETTTTTYYY SUUUUUURRRRRREEEEEE...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 11:13:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Somehow "Scientists say" is not very convincing, though I have had no interaction with dolphins.

Clearly you are more qualified on this matter than they are.

In any case, remember, rights are reciprocal.

To you, maybe.

I'm pretty sure no one's managed to abolish that yet.

I'm pretty sure you didn't read my link.

PREEEEEEETTTTTYYY SUUUUUURRRRRREEEEEE...

Apparently you are not capable of the same respect I asked others to grant you. Very well then.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 11:27:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 11:13:50 PM, Yvette wrote:
Somehow "Scientists say" is not very convincing, though I have had no interaction with dolphins.

Clearly you are more qualified on this matter than they are.
A mere lack of knowledge does not obligate one to accept an authority that has all the reason in the world to lie, and very little reason to even be trying to accept the same thing as you


In any case, remember, rights are reciprocal.

To you, maybe.
No, see here is where you're supposed to convince me to take up a non-reciprocal view of rights :).


I'm pretty sure no one's managed to abolish that yet.

I'm pretty sure you didn't read my link.
The link didn't discuss the end of life on earth, just a mass extinction, otherwise known as evolutionary business as usual. And it didn't discuss a specific action by any particular person-- you can't enforce a right against nonspecific parties. You can "Enforce" it against no one if there are no violators, by doing nothing, but you need to define guilt if you think it is being violated, and come up with a course of action in which it is not being violated.

As for respect, I didn't regard Poejoe's responses as disrespectful either. Not everyone is as sensitive as you, and this isn't a place known for sensitivity :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2010 11:55:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A mere lack of knowledge does not obligate one to accept an authority that has all the reason in the world to lie, and very little reason to even be trying to accept the same thing as you

Obligate? No. But it's foolish to distrust a large amount of consistent peer-reviewed science just because it's inconvenient to your philosophy.

No, see here is where you're supposed to convince me to take up a non-reciprocal view of rights :).

I'll pass trying to convince someone to change what they value morally. That's like trying to convince a liberal that tradition is more important than fairness. I don't require reciprocation to value another creature's rights, you do. That's a value difference.

The link didn't discuss the end of life on earth, just a mass extinction, otherwise known as evolutionary business as usual. And it didn't discuss a specific action by any particular person-- you can't enforce a right against nonspecific parties. You can "Enforce" it against no one if there are no violators, by doing nothing, but you need to define guilt if you think it is being violated, and come up with a course of action in which it is not being violated.

If mass extinction happens as a result of changing climate and overproduction, etc, that's a problem with the ability to sustain life. Just as a certain amount of food can't sustain a population over a certain amount. I mean, there's that whole "meteor hitting the earth" theory. Pretty sure that made sustaining life just a bit difficult even if it didn't end life on earth. And, uhm, if the problem is overproduction, pollution, etc, it's not a vague problem. The philosophy you espouse, that you can do whatever you like on your property regardless of how it affects the ecosystem, directly causes this problem.

As for respect, I didn't regard Poejoe's responses as disrespectful either. Not everyone is as sensitive as you, and this isn't a place known for sensitivity :)

I'm tearing up as we speak. Forgive me then, I suppose, for expecting some level of maturity and mutual respect.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2010 12:04:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/14/2010 11:55:57 PM, Yvette wrote:
A mere lack of knowledge does not obligate one to accept an authority that has all the reason in the world to lie, and very little reason to even be trying to accept the same thing as you

Obligate? No. But it's foolish to distrust a large amount of consistent peer-reviewed science
Where's the link to that? I got a link to a Helen Brook article.

No, see here is where you're supposed to convince me to take up a non-reciprocal view of rights :).

I'll pass trying to convince someone to change what they value morally
Rights are political-- ethically, I'm an egoist. If you can convince me that it is in my best interest to embrace a non-reciprocal view of rights...


The link didn't discuss the end of life on earth, just a mass extinction, otherwise known as evolutionary business as usual. And it didn't discuss a specific action by any particular person-- you can't enforce a right against nonspecific parties. You can "Enforce" it against no one if there are no violators, by doing nothing, but you need to define guilt if you think it is being violated, and come up with a course of action in which it is not being violated.

If mass extinction happens as a result of changing climate and overproduction
There is no such thing as overproduction, and "changing climate" supposedly (when one ignores that correlation does not equal causation) results from a chemical that dolphins release too :)

etc, that's a problem with the ability to sustain life.
Life still goes on with less biodiversity.

I mean, there's that whole "meteor hitting the earth" theory. Pretty sure that made sustaining life just a bit difficult
For some species. Not for others.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2010 12:47:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Rights are political-- ethically, I'm an egoist. If you can convince me that it is in my best interest to embrace a non-reciprocal view of rights...

This is precisely what I mean. While all of us are selfish, it varies. Most people will help to a certain extent with no clear benefit. Even more will work well in fair reciprocal systems (ie not capitalism). Some feel nice and macho for being selfish. It differs.

I can't make you a less selfish person.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2010 1:07:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Even more will work well in fair reciprocal systems (ie not capitalism)
What's so unfair about it? If you don't like what you're receiving for something, don't sign a contract.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2010 3:46:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
These are the main theories of ownership on the farthest right and the farthest left.

Labour theory: "I worked for this, thus it is mine"

Need theory: " I need this more than you, thus it is mine"

Both of these have advantages and disadvantages.

I think the best place is directly in-between.

Everyone gets what is necessary to survive. But all the excess goes to those who worked for it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord