3 ms·

You are assuming a right to property (along the same lines as your argument about people assuming inherent value).

CamperBob2 5y ago
Not necessarily. In a home-invasion situation, the only person who really knows what's going on is the burglar. I have to assume that he doesn't just want my stuff, he wants to harm me or my family. It's unreasonable to require me to trust the intruder's good faith. These things aren't exactly negotiated in advance.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  As used there, the word 'invasion' assumes property rights exist.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    How so? I don't follow. It's true that the original question posits a robbery or other home-invasion scenario with the goal of stealing property, but how am I supposed to know that the intruder is only interested in my stuff?
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      There's no threat created when someone simply moves into a shared space. The word "burglar" assumes that property rights exist. Note that I mostly think the inconsistency is silly and should be pointed at, I don't have a problem admitting that property rights exist in most societies. edit: "intruder" has the same problem as burglar. Along with "home" and "robbery".
      - CamperBob2 5y ago
        There's no threat created when someone simply moves into a shared space. What I'm hearing is that you've never been the victim of any sort of assault. Lucky guy.
        maxerickson 5y ago
        No, I'm arguing that the right to protect property is the same sort of social construction that the value of human life is. Without a layer of social construction, it's just the use of dominating force, an exercise of power. If you want to argue that is how the world works, that's fine, but you are demanding that other people justify their social constructions and then assuming that your social constructions are not social constructions.
        CamperBob2 5y ago
        but you are demanding that other people justify their social constructions and then assuming that your social constructions are not social constructions. It's natural for me to defend my property with lethal force. (Consider how many animals will do the same thing, if another animal tries to take their food or mate away.) Consequently, assuming it's your position that I should not be allowed to do that, you have to pass a law and use force to stop me. That means that yes, you're the one who gets to justify your unnatural (but still potentially optimal) point of view. Exactly why are we better off if we strive to remove the personal safety risk from criminal acts? It seems that we're starting to see the results play out in real time -- ask anyone who was shopping at the Nordstrom's in Walnut Creek the other day, for instance. Does that mean I'd be inclined to shoot someone for stealing the catalytic converter from my car, parked at curbside on a public street? Honestly, I can't see myself doing that, because according to my personal values that would be a pretty sociopathic thing to do. But I'm also not inclined to interfere if someone else wants to do that. The recent trend towards de-policing and non-prosecution of property crimes will certainly lead to more instances of this kind of dilemma playing out on the street. If law enforcement won't act, you can't be too surprised when individual citizens do.
      - alex_sf 5y ago
        What's our address? I'd just like to enter our shared space and borrow our computer. Maybe our wallet too.
        maxerickson 5y ago
        You must have missed the comment elsewhere in the thread where I explained that I do believe in property rights. I'm making an abstract point about the form of the argument the other commenter constructed upthread, not advocating that property rights aren't real.
  - jojobas 5y ago
    Rights are a matter of human convention. Property rights are as real as any other rights however.
  - chii 5y ago
    > assumes property rights exist. which, in the OP's world view, does exist, and it overrides the burglar's right to life. Your argument against the OP's moralism is that the burglar's right to life should not be overridden by the OP's property rights. This is why moralistic arguments are flawed - different people (perhaps different cultures) have differing morals. The law, as codified by society (and hopefully, agreed to democratically) is what should be used to judge actions, not moralism.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      Incorrect, I'm pointing out to OP that they are making a moralistic argument. They argue as if their position is objective. edit: changed "claim" to "argue as if".
mikem170 5y ago
I agree. Throughout time there have been cultures without the concept of private property. I've been reading recently how hard-hittingly critical Native American commentary on European culture was back in that day, pointing out all the numerous problems that come with money and private property. Kondairock for example, as related by the French author Lahontan. Lethal force to defend a life makes sense. Most cultures do not approve of using lethal force to defend property. There's also the problem of the shooter misjudging the situation, shooting some teenager's playing chase, for example, or someone with alzheimers, etc. I actually know of a drunk that tried to break down the door into his apartment, but it turns out he was in the wrong building. Didn't deserve to die. But I understand why people feel this way. Nobody wants to be robbed. In our consumerist culture possessions are the most important thing to many people.
- bluGill 5y ago
  I have a problem with those: when the Europeans came they brought with them disease. Other than Columbus's initial contact (which didn't last long as only hit islands), we are no longer dealing with the same situation. The population was greatly reduced and never recovered. This would of course make a lot of major changes to the culture, and for the most part they didn't leave a written record of what things were like before. Gift giving in a culture is something that we cannot learn from unwritten records. Even if there was a written record, in general people write down what they want to be seen as not what they were. I'm not saying that they didn't give gifts. Lots of people like to give gifts. I'm saying that ownership probably was a bigger deal than we give them credit for - but we will never know.
  - mikem170 5y ago
    > for the most part they didn't leave a written record of what things were like before Europeans and Native Americans interacted. They observed each other. They talked to each other. For quite some time. Kondiaronk [0] was a highly respected chief, statesman, and political philosophizer. Louis Armand de Lom d’Arce spent time in North America and wrote a book based on his dialogs with Kondiaronk [1]. This book was famous for a while. It contrasted the freedom and justice Indians had for themselves with the injustice of Christianity, subjugation to lords, and the problems associated with money and other facets of the European way of life. The book precipitated a lot of philosophical soul searching, an off-shoot of which was the idea of the "noble savage", which was used to eventually discount any ideas these primitives had as irrelevant to civilized modern people. I'm not sure if I understand your comment. Are you saying that Kondiaronk would not have known how Indians lived? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondiaronk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondiaronk [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Voyages_to_North_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Voyages_to_North_America

Not necessarily. In a home-invasion situation, the only person who really knows what's going on is the burglar. I have to assume that he doesn't just want my stuff, he wants to harm me or my family. It's unreasonable to require me to trust the intruder's good faith. These things aren't exactly negotiated in advance.

maxerickson 5y ago
As used there, the word 'invasion' assumes property rights exist.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  How so? I don't follow. It's true that the original question posits a robbery or other home-invasion scenario with the goal of stealing property, but how am I supposed to know that the intruder is only interested in my stuff?
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    There's no threat created when someone simply moves into a shared space. The word "burglar" assumes that property rights exist. Note that I mostly think the inconsistency is silly and should be pointed at, I don't have a problem admitting that property rights exist in most societies. edit: "intruder" has the same problem as burglar. Along with "home" and "robbery".
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      There's no threat created when someone simply moves into a shared space. What I'm hearing is that you've never been the victim of any sort of assault. Lucky guy.
      - maxerickson 5y ago
        No, I'm arguing that the right to protect property is the same sort of social construction that the value of human life is. Without a layer of social construction, it's just the use of dominating force, an exercise of power. If you want to argue that is how the world works, that's fine, but you are demanding that other people justify their social constructions and then assuming that your social constructions are not social constructions.
        CamperBob2 5y ago
        but you are demanding that other people justify their social constructions and then assuming that your social constructions are not social constructions. It's natural for me to defend my property with lethal force. (Consider how many animals will do the same thing, if another animal tries to take their food or mate away.) Consequently, assuming it's your position that I should not be allowed to do that, you have to pass a law and use force to stop me. That means that yes, you're the one who gets to justify your unnatural (but still potentially optimal) point of view. Exactly why are we better off if we strive to remove the personal safety risk from criminal acts? It seems that we're starting to see the results play out in real time -- ask anyone who was shopping at the Nordstrom's in Walnut Creek the other day, for instance. Does that mean I'd be inclined to shoot someone for stealing the catalytic converter from my car, parked at curbside on a public street? Honestly, I can't see myself doing that, because according to my personal values that would be a pretty sociopathic thing to do. But I'm also not inclined to interfere if someone else wants to do that. The recent trend towards de-policing and non-prosecution of property crimes will certainly lead to more instances of this kind of dilemma playing out on the street. If law enforcement won't act, you can't be too surprised when individual citizens do.
    - alex_sf 5y ago
      What's our address? I'd just like to enter our shared space and borrow our computer. Maybe our wallet too.
      - maxerickson 5y ago
        You must have missed the comment elsewhere in the thread where I explained that I do believe in property rights. I'm making an abstract point about the form of the argument the other commenter constructed upthread, not advocating that property rights aren't real.
- jojobas 5y ago
  Rights are a matter of human convention. Property rights are as real as any other rights however.
- chii 5y ago
  > assumes property rights exist. which, in the OP's world view, does exist, and it overrides the burglar's right to life. Your argument against the OP's moralism is that the burglar's right to life should not be overridden by the OP's property rights. This is why moralistic arguments are flawed - different people (perhaps different cultures) have differing morals. The law, as codified by society (and hopefully, agreed to democratically) is what should be used to judge actions, not moralism.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    Incorrect, I'm pointing out to OP that they are making a moralistic argument. They argue as if their position is objective. edit: changed "claim" to "argue as if".

mikem170 5y ago

I agree. Throughout time there have been cultures without the concept of private property. I've been reading recently how hard-hittingly critical Native American commentary on European culture was back in that day, pointing out all the numerous problems that come with money and private property. Kondairock for example, as related by the French author Lahontan. Lethal force to defend a life makes sense. Most cultures do not approve of using lethal force to defend property. There's also the problem of the shooter misjudging the situation, shooting some teenager's playing chase, for example, or someone with alzheimers, etc. I actually know of a drunk that tried to break down the door into his apartment, but it turns out he was in the wrong building. Didn't deserve to die. But I understand why people feel this way. Nobody wants to be robbed. In our consumerist culture possessions are the most important thing to many people.

bluGill 5y ago
I have a problem with those: when the Europeans came they brought with them disease. Other than Columbus's initial contact (which didn't last long as only hit islands), we are no longer dealing with the same situation. The population was greatly reduced and never recovered. This would of course make a lot of major changes to the culture, and for the most part they didn't leave a written record of what things were like before. Gift giving in a culture is something that we cannot learn from unwritten records. Even if there was a written record, in general people write down what they want to be seen as not what they were. I'm not saying that they didn't give gifts. Lots of people like to give gifts. I'm saying that ownership probably was a bigger deal than we give them credit for - but we will never know.
- mikem170 5y ago
  > for the most part they didn't leave a written record of what things were like before Europeans and Native Americans interacted. They observed each other. They talked to each other. For quite some time. Kondiaronk [0] was a highly respected chief, statesman, and political philosophizer. Louis Armand de Lom d’Arce spent time in North America and wrote a book based on his dialogs with Kondiaronk [1]. This book was famous for a while. It contrasted the freedom and justice Indians had for themselves with the injustice of Christianity, subjugation to lords, and the problems associated with money and other facets of the European way of life. The book precipitated a lot of philosophical soul searching, an off-shoot of which was the idea of the "noble savage", which was used to eventually discount any ideas these primitives had as irrelevant to civilized modern people. I'm not sure if I understand your comment. Are you saying that Kondiaronk would not have known how Indians lived? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondiaronk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondiaronk [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Voyages_to_North_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Voyages_to_North_America