Reply to: Dominoes - Pay a little more

[original PM]

om nom nom

[d000hg]

WHS and I'd like some ham and mushrooms to go with that, and a carafe of cheapo frascati please.

It's a bit early for booze. Even on the mainland.

[Mich the Tester]

This thread is as boring as a margherita pizza, hold the cheese.

WHS and I'd like some ham and mushrooms to go with that, and a carafe of cheapo frascati please.

[d000hg]

This thread is as boring as a margherita pizza, hold the cheese.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I don't claim that my position is objectively right so I have to prove nothing. Mine is a value position. You claim that property right is objectively demonstrable. So if there is a claim that land ownership rights are invalid because they are rooted in misappropriation from common ownership, then you must objectively prove your position.

What's with all the straw men? Whether inalienable property rights are an a priori axiom, or not, has nothing to do with whether someone's claimed property, given that we have such a concept, is in fact someone else's or not.

You're begging the question too. The very fact that you are trying to disprove the concept of property rights by positing prior 'misappropriation' of that property is a performative contradiction.

Given that your argument is 'self-detonating' all we're left with is my original claim that property rights are self evident and objectively provable, if you care to ask yourself first why we need morality and from there to consider what it is.

I posted the title of a book, and isbn number, in which you'll find the proof; given that you don't have any discernible and logically consistent argument otherwise, I don't need to do any more.

Can I at least assume that you believe that you own yourself? Or, to be clear, that a man owns himself?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Can you objectively prove that common ownership (as it is generally understood) was not the previous state?

Surely you're not asking him to prove a negative?

[SpontaneousOrder]

There is no right to assert ownership over anything, formerly unowned or not, other than that conferred by nature i.e. the ability to stake a claim and defend it, through violence if necessary.

It's only due to nature, in the form of cultural evolution, that we have moved on from this natural state of might is right to more subtle systems such as law courts and 'state sanctioned violence'. And only evolution will effect change, while you may critique government in the abstract your theoretical musings need to be tempered by what's feasible and achieveable from our current position. Anything that isn't is just BS.

At the current time removal of the state will simply leave a vacuum into which other things will rush. And it won't be filled with an anarchist utopia. Its no more feasible than communism.

Noone is saying that we should throw a switch and simply dissolve government. I'm an atheist, but I don't think that demolishing every church in the land will make the population atheist : )

[doodab]

There is no right to assert ownership over anything, formerly unowned or not, other than that conferred by nature i.e. the ability to stake a claim and defend it, through violence if necessary.

It's only due to nature, in the form of cultural evolution, that we have moved on from this natural state of might is right to more subtle systems such as law courts and 'state sanctioned violence'. And only evolution will effect change, while you may critique government in the abstract your theoretical musings need to be tempered by what's feasible and achieveable from our current position. Anything that isn't is just BS.

At the current time removal of the state will simply leave a vacuum into which other things will rush. And it won't be filled with an anarchist utopia. Its no more feasible than communism.

[Zero Liability]

I don't claim that my position is objectively right so I have to prove nothing. Mine is a value position. You claim that property right is objectively demonstrable. So if there is a claim that land ownership rights are invalid because they are rooted in misappropriation from common ownership, then you must objectively prove your position.

I take it you're unfamiliar with elementary reasoning. Trying to disguise a factual claim as a "value" claim so you don't have to provide evidence for it doesn't work. I have said nothing about what is "objectively demonstrable", however I have asked you to first of all clarify what you mean by common ownership, to establish if there's been any "misappropriation", since you are playing rather fast and loose with terms. You have refused and failed to do so repeatedly, and until you do, my answer will be the same.

"common ownership" in the case land means that everyone who had access to the land i.e. everyone who lived in the region or travelled through it owned it.

It's really not a hard concept to understand especially as there is historical context to explain it.

It is a pretty hard concept to understand when people refuse to define what they mean and keep referring, in the abstract, to things like easements. All an easement gives rise to is one particular subset of any bundle of ownership rights, i.e. the right of passage in this case, where you can actually demonstrate there was frequent enough travel to warrant an easement, through a given area, and even then it'd just apply to right of passage through that pathway. Why would this apply to all land in the country?

[AtW]

FFS, give it a rest already. No1 contender for the most boring thread of the year.

Vote for this thread here -

CUK Reader Awards 2013

[Cliphead]

FFS, give it a rest already. No1 contender for the most boring thread of the year.

Go get pished / laid or whatever floats yer boat.

Oh wait, IT geeks

Get a room then.

[AtW]

But his position is objectively correct so this must be false. And he will be along to prove it objectively.

Objection sustained...

[Old Greg]

"common ownership" in the case land means that everyone who had access to the land i.e. everyone who lived in the region or travelled through it owned it.

It's really not a hard concept to understand especially as there is historical context to explain it.

But his position is objectively correct so this must be false. And he will be along to prove it objectively.

[SueEllen]

Until you actually qualify who owned this land when it was under "common ownership" and what you specifically mean by this (a King laying claim to it by verbal declaration? Parliament doing so? a few people treading on it once or twice? etc), I am afraid I am that is far from proven. So I am unclear by what moral authority these lands were held in "common" in the first place, and you persistently refuse to qualify this. Unless you are the heir of someone who was expropriated by Parliament, or are being prevented from appropriating areas of untouched land, you are aggrieved by no one in this respect.

"common ownership" in the case land means that everyone who had access to the land i.e. everyone who lived in the region or travelled through it owned it.

It's really not a hard concept to understand especially as there is historical context to explain it.

[Old Greg]

Obviously no one.



Can you objectively prove that it was the case, since you are now asking me to prove a negative? Outside of Enlightenment philosophers, who holds it to be common and on what basis?

I don't claim that my position is objectively right so I have to prove nothing. Mine is a value position. You claim that property right is objectively demonstrable. So if there is a claim that land ownership rights are invalid because they are rooted in misappropriation from common ownership, then you must objectively prove your position.