4 ms·

I love extending arguments to logical absurdity to see where they fall apart. I have an airbrush my mom gave me when I was a teen. It has sentimental value. I'v

I love extending arguments to logical absurdity to see where they fall apart. I have an airbrush my mom gave me when I was a teen. It has sentimental value. I've not used it in 20 years. Should I be forced to sell or rent it out? Or my MRE (Meals Ready To Eat) collection is over 10 years old now. Should I be forced to sell them to the hungry? How is that different than real estate? All resources are scarce including life saving medical tech. Do you force redistribution on all resources and assets?

ajross 3y ago
With all respect: what you're employing is a good dictionary definition for a glibertarian argument. "The government shouldn't make a rule because at it's 'logical absurdity' the argument falls apart" is in more typical terminology a absolutely ridiculous strawman. You obviously don't seize obscure collectibles because there's limited public interest in such a collection. But that too has limits at the "logical absurdity" extreme: you might seize a historical artifact or painting from a private collector because it was looted from a museum 90 years ago before re-entering the private market after a few decades. And, yeah, you might seize an abandoned property to prevent the community it's in from decaying.
- sethammons 3y ago
  Abandoned. I think that is the delineation. Great point! I feel that if you can show something is abandoned, it can be up for grabs, including my personal property. Now to define "abandoned." In my home town, a potentially lucrative piece of real estate was fenced and not maintained because the owner was pissed at the city. The only reason they held it was because "fuck you city." I could see an argument as saying that it is abandoned and should be forced to be used. I can also see that as free speech because the owner was making a statement about local ordinances. Is it abandoned or an active political statement?
  - brewdad 3y ago
    I see an argument for the addition of the fence as "improving" the property and therefore showing that it has not been abandoned. Aside from the obvious goal of keeping out trespassers, I'd be willing to bet the fence was added based on legal advice. In a few years there will probably need to be some further "improvement". Perhaps as simple as replacing the fence.
  - vintermann 3y ago
    > Now to define "abandoned." We're going to do that on a case by case basis depending on reasonable things like the user's need for it, other people's need for it, what the neighbours think of it etc. With courts and whatnot. And there's nothing you can do about it.
getmeinrn 3y ago
I'm not taking a side here, but not every law has to extend to the general case for it to fix a problem. If we required that, there would be almost no laws.
- sethammons 3y ago
  That is not what my questions are for. My examples are obviously absurd. That is the point. Where is the line? Kind of reminds me if the old joke: A guy asks a gal if she'll sleep with him for $10M. She, says yes. He asks what about for $100 and she is offended: "what kind of woman do you think I am!?" To which he replies, "we've already determined that, now we are just haggling over the price."

ajross 3y ago

With all respect: what you're employing is a good dictionary definition for a glibertarian argument. "The government shouldn't make a rule because at it's 'logical absurdity' the argument falls apart" is in more typical terminology a absolutely ridiculous strawman. You obviously don't seize obscure collectibles because there's limited public interest in such a collection. But that too has limits at the "logical absurdity" extreme: you might seize a historical artifact or painting from a private collector because it was looted from a museum 90 years ago before re-entering the private market after a few decades. And, yeah, you might seize an abandoned property to prevent the community it's in from decaying.

sethammons 3y ago
Abandoned. I think that is the delineation. Great point! I feel that if you can show something is abandoned, it can be up for grabs, including my personal property. Now to define "abandoned." In my home town, a potentially lucrative piece of real estate was fenced and not maintained because the owner was pissed at the city. The only reason they held it was because "fuck you city." I could see an argument as saying that it is abandoned and should be forced to be used. I can also see that as free speech because the owner was making a statement about local ordinances. Is it abandoned or an active political statement?
- brewdad 3y ago
  I see an argument for the addition of the fence as "improving" the property and therefore showing that it has not been abandoned. Aside from the obvious goal of keeping out trespassers, I'd be willing to bet the fence was added based on legal advice. In a few years there will probably need to be some further "improvement". Perhaps as simple as replacing the fence.
- vintermann 3y ago
  > Now to define "abandoned." We're going to do that on a case by case basis depending on reasonable things like the user's need for it, other people's need for it, what the neighbours think of it etc. With courts and whatnot. And there's nothing you can do about it.

getmeinrn 3y ago

I'm not taking a side here, but not every law has to extend to the general case for it to fix a problem. If we required that, there would be almost no laws.

sethammons 3y ago
That is not what my questions are for. My examples are obviously absurd. That is the point. Where is the line? Kind of reminds me if the old joke: A guy asks a gal if she'll sleep with him for $10M. She, says yes. He asks what about for $100 and she is offended: "what kind of woman do you think I am!?" To which he replies, "we've already determined that, now we are just haggling over the price."