4 ms·

I'd encourage you to read about the logic derivation of natural law based on private property through argumentative ethics, as described in the article I mentio

I'd encourage you to read about the logic derivation of natural law based on private property through argumentative ethics, as described in the article I mentioned.

Iv 7y ago
I have. I think they are bollocks. Have you read and understood them and are ready to defend steps and axioms of this thesis or are you just enamored with his conclusions? Specifically, I think this is nonsensical: "Second, it must be noted that argumentation does not consist of free-floating propositions but is a form of action requiring the employment of scarce means; and that the means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property." It is a well accepted rule in logic and debate that propositions have merit on their own, therefore the way they are stated is irrelevant, whether they consume scarce means or not. The jump from scarce means to private property is laughable. Actually I have a hard time charitably following his reasoning. It is obvious the conclusion he wants to reach, but it is hard to understand where he sees an unfolding of logic arguments. Even if his claims were true, which are, if I understand correctly, that the mere fact of engaging in a moralistic discussion presupposes the speakers assume a kind of private property instinctively, it does not follow that this presupposition is correct. That's a naturalistic fallacy. It can be used to justify domination, sharing, violence, death of the weak. Using it to defend something as obviously artificial as private property is news to me, and I think pretty hard to defend, but even if it did, it presupposes we should care about "natural law", something most philosophers learned to dismiss since the 19th century.
- nl 7y ago
  I think this is nonsensical I think you are being very polite in your assessment.
  - Iv 7y ago
    I think you are very perceptive :-)
    - shantly 7y ago
      From what I can tell, having followed several mises.org links over the years, castles-built-on-sand reasoning is kinda their whole thing. They rely on the reader missing some obvious objection, or some unjustified leap or connection between two things, early in their “logical” argument to make it all work. It’s dumb writing in smart writing’s clothing.
      - sovietcattle 7y ago
        Would you mind referring to some articles as examples of the fallacies you're describing? Or is it the case that you simply don't like the content and therefore you dismiss it using whatever excuses you find convenient?
        nl 7y ago
        Well the one you linked to is a good example. If property rights are derived by the ability to argue then babies can't own property. But they can... If the argument is that someone else does the argument on behalf of the baby then anything can use that argument. We see other numerous counter examples - court cases on behalf of animal rights, collectively owned property etc. It's a simple circular argument disguised in lots of complicated writing.
        sovietcattle 7y ago
        That's only if you didn't bother reading it carefully. You missed the point about the ability of performing arguments. Babies and children might not be able to argument at the moment, but they are capable of argumentation. Therefore, for as long as they don't achieve maturity, tutors can act in the interest of the child. Animals, on the other hand, can't argument at all, therefore are not capable of holding negative property rights. Bear in mind that positive rights can't be reasoned without failing at Hume's razor, for the simple reason one can't have rights over other people's property. Collective property can't be reasoned either. In any case, I invite you to try to reason about said "rights" without resorting to positive law. Which other articles didn't you like and that you claim are "nonsensical"?
- sovietcattle 7y ago
  "I think this is nonsensical" ... "Actually I have a hard time charitably following his reasoning". Let me help you a bit by over-simplyfing the logic: - If I state an argument to you, it can either be true, false or indeterminate. No matter what argument you make to me in that regard, you'd end up agreeing with that argument, which means that specific argument is "a priori". Moreover, you can only reach a conclusion about my argument by being you, which means you need to have control over your own thoughts to achieve that conclusion (self-ownership) - If we define ethics as the minimal set of rules that we agree upon in order to maintain our voluntarily stable pacific relationships over time and space, the only possible way we can achieve those ethics is through an argumentative process (I invite you to think of a refutation of that statement) - Self-ownership can't be maintained (therefore invalidating the time and space requirement) without some means (food, water, shelter, etc). Those means are scarce, and can only be used by a single person at a time. So if we define property as something that is scarce (therefore delimitable) and is being used (therefore modified and protected), private property is a necessary requirement for sustaining self-ownership. - In conclusion: A minimal system of ethics require arguments to be produced. Arguments require self-ownership to be produced. Self-ownership require private property to be sustained. Therefore if the aim is to achieve a minimal system of ethics that allow for the stable and pacific co-existence of individuals over time and space, the agreement on private property is required -- and that itself constitutes the minimal ethical. That said, it doesn't mean that you'll agree with anything I exposed. By not agreeing, however, you are implicitly agreeing (by stating an argument). The moment you generate an argument, by the means of logic, you're agreeing on the minimal ethics of private property (although you may not be acting in alignment with that ethics).
  - Iv 7y ago
    Yes, we are in agreement to what this so-called reasoning is. So let's criticize it then. I'll refer to your proposal by numbers if you don't mind. 1. is actually two propositions, the first one unnecessary to the discussion. But useful to frame the second part as as self-evident as the first one. 2. is simply false. We could agree to a relation of dominance. Several non-violent ways of doing that through cultural, religious, familial, societal means have existed in the past. Luckily for you, 2. is also totally useless to the argument being made. 3. Yes, if you define private property as the act of eating and drinking, then it is consubstantiated with our human condition. That's not the definition generally admitted though. My son (who is 5 yo) does not own anything, yet he eats food I own, is sheltered at our place, receives water we pay for. Does it make him incapable of reasoning? He frequently argues, occasionally reasonably. Actually this jump from scarce to private property is the main problem of the argumentation. Scarce things don't have to be owned. That's the whole subject of the debate, you can't just assume it is true to prove it is true. 4. follows from 3 so I consider it invalidated. I'll just ask this: is a slave unable to produce arguments? Or do you consider a slave owns their body, food, water, shelter?

I'd encourage you to read about the logic derivation of natural law based on private property through argumentative ethics, as described in the article I mentioned.

Iv 7y ago

I have. I think they are bollocks. Have you read and understood them and are ready to defend steps and axioms of this thesis or are you just enamored with his conclusions? Specifically, I think this is nonsensical: "Second, it must be noted that argumentation does not consist of free-floating propositions but is a form of action requiring the employment of scarce means; and that the means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property." It is a well accepted rule in logic and debate that propositions have merit on their own, therefore the way they are stated is irrelevant, whether they consume scarce means or not. The jump from scarce means to private property is laughable. Actually I have a hard time charitably following his reasoning. It is obvious the conclusion he wants to reach, but it is hard to understand where he sees an unfolding of logic arguments. Even if his claims were true, which are, if I understand correctly, that the mere fact of engaging in a moralistic discussion presupposes the speakers assume a kind of private property instinctively, it does not follow that this presupposition is correct. That's a naturalistic fallacy. It can be used to justify domination, sharing, violence, death of the weak. Using it to defend something as obviously artificial as private property is news to me, and I think pretty hard to defend, but even if it did, it presupposes we should care about "natural law", something most philosophers learned to dismiss since the 19th century.

nl 7y ago
I think this is nonsensical I think you are being very polite in your assessment.
- Iv 7y ago
  I think you are very perceptive :-)
  - shantly 7y ago
    From what I can tell, having followed several mises.org links over the years, castles-built-on-sand reasoning is kinda their whole thing. They rely on the reader missing some obvious objection, or some unjustified leap or connection between two things, early in their “logical” argument to make it all work. It’s dumb writing in smart writing’s clothing.
    - sovietcattle 7y ago
      Would you mind referring to some articles as examples of the fallacies you're describing? Or is it the case that you simply don't like the content and therefore you dismiss it using whatever excuses you find convenient?
      - nl 7y ago
        Well the one you linked to is a good example. If property rights are derived by the ability to argue then babies can't own property. But they can... If the argument is that someone else does the argument on behalf of the baby then anything can use that argument. We see other numerous counter examples - court cases on behalf of animal rights, collectively owned property etc. It's a simple circular argument disguised in lots of complicated writing.
        sovietcattle 7y ago
        That's only if you didn't bother reading it carefully. You missed the point about the ability of performing arguments. Babies and children might not be able to argument at the moment, but they are capable of argumentation. Therefore, for as long as they don't achieve maturity, tutors can act in the interest of the child. Animals, on the other hand, can't argument at all, therefore are not capable of holding negative property rights. Bear in mind that positive rights can't be reasoned without failing at Hume's razor, for the simple reason one can't have rights over other people's property. Collective property can't be reasoned either. In any case, I invite you to try to reason about said "rights" without resorting to positive law. Which other articles didn't you like and that you claim are "nonsensical"?
sovietcattle 7y ago
"I think this is nonsensical" ... "Actually I have a hard time charitably following his reasoning". Let me help you a bit by over-simplyfing the logic: - If I state an argument to you, it can either be true, false or indeterminate. No matter what argument you make to me in that regard, you'd end up agreeing with that argument, which means that specific argument is "a priori". Moreover, you can only reach a conclusion about my argument by being you, which means you need to have control over your own thoughts to achieve that conclusion (self-ownership) - If we define ethics as the minimal set of rules that we agree upon in order to maintain our voluntarily stable pacific relationships over time and space, the only possible way we can achieve those ethics is through an argumentative process (I invite you to think of a refutation of that statement) - Self-ownership can't be maintained (therefore invalidating the time and space requirement) without some means (food, water, shelter, etc). Those means are scarce, and can only be used by a single person at a time. So if we define property as something that is scarce (therefore delimitable) and is being used (therefore modified and protected), private property is a necessary requirement for sustaining self-ownership. - In conclusion: A minimal system of ethics require arguments to be produced. Arguments require self-ownership to be produced. Self-ownership require private property to be sustained. Therefore if the aim is to achieve a minimal system of ethics that allow for the stable and pacific co-existence of individuals over time and space, the agreement on private property is required -- and that itself constitutes the minimal ethical. That said, it doesn't mean that you'll agree with anything I exposed. By not agreeing, however, you are implicitly agreeing (by stating an argument). The moment you generate an argument, by the means of logic, you're agreeing on the minimal ethics of private property (although you may not be acting in alignment with that ethics).
- Iv 7y ago
  Yes, we are in agreement to what this so-called reasoning is. So let's criticize it then. I'll refer to your proposal by numbers if you don't mind. 1. is actually two propositions, the first one unnecessary to the discussion. But useful to frame the second part as as self-evident as the first one. 2. is simply false. We could agree to a relation of dominance. Several non-violent ways of doing that through cultural, religious, familial, societal means have existed in the past. Luckily for you, 2. is also totally useless to the argument being made. 3. Yes, if you define private property as the act of eating and drinking, then it is consubstantiated with our human condition. That's not the definition generally admitted though. My son (who is 5 yo) does not own anything, yet he eats food I own, is sheltered at our place, receives water we pay for. Does it make him incapable of reasoning? He frequently argues, occasionally reasonably. Actually this jump from scarce to private property is the main problem of the argumentation. Scarce things don't have to be owned. That's the whole subject of the debate, you can't just assume it is true to prove it is true. 4. follows from 3 so I consider it invalidated. I'll just ask this: is a slave unable to produce arguments? Or do you consider a slave owns their body, food, water, shelter?