unpacking a moral realism: a companion to 'libertarianism in practice'

[Walker]

A man belongs to himself. (Or, as my good friend, age put it: A man is free).

It is what it is.

I belong to myself; you belong to yourself.

This is self-evident.

Not so fast.


“Soli Deo gloria,” refers to purpose, the reason to move and the reason to be, for those on that frequency. Freedom is a necessary element to achieve the purpose, but paradoxically, that freedom is found through surrender to the purpose. Why surrender to that purpose? Well, for those who truly do, it’s to continue living. Those who surrender are captured. Sometimes even enslaved.

Such folks belong to God, not to themselves, and are enslaved to that energy source that Wallenda was referencing when he noted that life is on the wire and all else is just waiting, i.e., for him the energy source that made him alive and was the reason to live. For huge numbers of all kinds of people energy is found in such enslavement, although in The Age of Materialism a case can be made that per capita, those huge numbers are smaller than in the past.

[promethean75]

"and how would you know if a few more blacks (or a whole buncha blacks) were gettin' off'd by meathead cops?"

What I meant earlier is that if cops don't 'slow they roll' after all this rioting shit set off by Floyd's death, and become more cognizant of what they're doing during arrests and/or detainments, then they're far dumber than we originally gave them credit for.

[henry quirk]

Soli Deo gloria

well, as I reckon it, He doesn't need or ask for glory but if folks wanna give it, that's fine by me

-----

What I meant earlier is that if cops don't 'slow they roll'...then they're far dumber than we originally gave them credit for.

oh, okay...I thought there was an implied threat there, like if them meatheads keep doin' that then we're gonna apocalypse their keisters, and I just wondered how you'd know them meatheads had stepped over the line in that well, fellers, you just gone too far this time kinda way

[Scott Mayers]

Scott,

you pack a lot into your posts: too much even under the best of circumstances for me to address without stealin' in large ways from the rest of my day, I pulled the bit that seems most germane to, that captures, I think, what may be the root difference between us...

The FACT that there is no equal distribution is only due to the laws that WE HUMANS created artificially that CONSERVE power in the hands of supposed "lords" of property that assert this as a 'right'.

sure

if we dump those laws, and law makers, equal distribution happens how?

mechanically, materially, how does it come about?

and: why should it come about?

what reasoning or philosophy undergirds equal distribution?

nature doesn't distribute equally or fairly, why should, how can, we?

I once asked myself how the Soviet Union reasserted 'ownership' rights to its citizens after their collapse in the 1990s. That is, how did they 'distribute' ownership from a universal state of ownership to private ownership when the very nature of ownership derives intially by some persons who merely CLAIM property in some arbitrary way? So this reverses the question to how it could be possible to decide WHO should be privileged to own from the state of relative non-ownership.

It begs the need for a definition of "ownership" to which I have been trying to express focusing on the root concept that determines what is one's "OWN"?

When distribution is imposed FROM a prior state of private ownership, this ONLY affects those who have the most such property to lose. For those with prior minimal ownership, they don't lose anything. That is, I believe (as most do here in the "West") that we CAN have a sufficient amount of 'ownership' that derives a middle-class average lifestyle. What I disagree with is to an uncapped, unrestricted power to own, such as that to which grants real existence to Billionaires OR the power equivalent to what ownership means politically,....such as a dictator in any system of government that enables absolute power over some specific significant domain that involves All PEOPLE.

The problem you are pointing to is real but exists with more devious concern about those who go from public ownership to private because who decides who should receive privileges goes from fair distribution to unfair ones. The concern about the contrasting Western capitalistic private ownership is about redistributing the EXCESS claims of ownership so that others born unprivileged can have the same fair competitive advantages as each other.

Ownership distribution in a capitalist society is from the very top to the very bottom and in general conserves a middle class lifestyle regardless.

[henry quirk]

Scott,

So this reverses the question to how it could be possible to decide WHO should be privileged to own from the state of relative non-ownership.

This is what I posted upthread...

Scott,

I am my first, best, property, as you are your first, best, property.

Property is also what you fairly, voluntarily, transact for and with.

It's also the product of your labor.

I write the novel. The paper I freely transacted for, as I did the pencil, pen, typewriter, or processor. (or, as the fictional DeSade in Quills, mebbe I created my own parchment, ink, and pen).

The whole chain of property is mine: the paper, the instrument, the creative work.

I grow apples: I bought the land, the tools,the saplings, mebbe even hired help. The land is mine, as are the tools, as are the trees, as is the produce (as is the debt should I fail to make produce). My hired hands are entitled to whatever mutually agreed upon compensation we've contracted for.

I reckon it has nuthin' to do with privilege and everything to do with effort and luck.

You asked yourself, how (did) the Soviet Union reassert (or return) 'ownership' rights to its citizens after their collapse in the 1990s(?) That is, how did they 'distribute' ownership from a universal state of ownership to private ownership(?)

The question is only meaningful if one or another was somehow tryin' to lay claim to some State asset, like a tank or a jeep or a bazooka (I'd want the bazooka). Anatoly, happy to be out from under The Thumb & Boot, simply got on with it. Whatever he had was his; whatever he could trade or transact for was his; whatever he created or cobbled together was his (though, I'm bettin' he didn't turn that AK and associated ammo away, should they have crossed his path).

What I disagree with is to an uncapped, unrestricted power to own, such as that to which grants real existence to Billionaires

There is, I think, a natural cap on wealth: sated appetites and the simple inability to defend, beyond a certain point, possessions and properties and assets. The State (any version you care to name) circumvents this natural cap. In a state capitalism, wealth buys legislation which defends the state capitalist beyond what is his natural limit for such things. In the state socialsm, the wealthy man buys favor from the the party and is defended beyond his normal limits for such things. If The State is neutered, that legislation, that favor, is neutered as well. The fortune, once secured thru The Big Stick is now unmanageable and poorly protected. To preserve what he can defend, he'll have to divest himself of that which he can't, or learn to live with uncertanty.

But what of his ill-gotten gains? Well, we need to cleanly separate the two notions: it's simply not a given becuz legislation or favor was bought that the wealth was somehow arrived at immorally (stolen). A determination must be made as to the legitimacy of ownership. Who do you trust to do such a thing?

No, with The State neutered, I'm inclined to leave the billionaire be. As I say: with no legislation or favor to defend him that natural cap will assert itself.

[RCSaunders]

What I disagree with is to an uncapped, unrestricted power to own, such as that to which grants real existence to Billionaires ...

Envy is a terribly destructive emotion that destroys one's ability to reason.

Your only objection to billionaires is that you are not one and have no intention of ever being one because you believe you can never produce that much value.

[henry quirk]

What I disagree with is to an uncapped, unrestricted power to own, such as that to which grants real existence to Billionaires ...

Envy is a terribly destructive emotion that destroys one's ability to reason.

Your only objection to billionaires is that you are not one and have no intention of ever being one because you believe you can never produce that much value.

jeez, guy, you don't know any of that

I don't agree with Scott, but that doesn't automatically mean he's just an envious schmuck

[RCSaunders]

What I disagree with is to an uncapped, unrestricted power to own, such as that to which grants real existence to Billionaires ...

Envy is a terribly destructive emotion that destroys one's ability to reason.

Your only objection to billionaires is that you are not one and have no intention of ever being one because you believe you can never produce that much value.

jeez, guy, you don't know any of that

I don't agree with Scott, but that doesn't automatically mean he's just an envious schmuck

For what possible reason would one be opposed to another human being's success based solely on that success? Perhaps some gain wealth at other's expense, and one could certainly be opposed to that, but being opposed to success, period, can only be motivated by envy or some other mental defect.

[henry quirk]

For what possible reason would one be opposed to another human being's success based solely on that success? *Perhaps some gain wealth at other's expense, and one could certainly be opposed to that, but being opposed to success, period, can only be motivated by envy or some other mental defect.

*seems to me: this is Scott's motivator, and -- like a lotta folks in-forum -- he believes capitalism is responsible for, what appears to him as, an unjust disparity and ill-gotten gain; it doesn't seem to me he opposes success in and of itself

[RCSaunders]

For what possible reason would one be opposed to another human being's success based solely on that success? *Perhaps some gain wealth at other's expense, and one could certainly be opposed to that, but being opposed to success, period, can only be motivated by envy or some other mental defect.

*seems to me: this is Scott's motivator, and -- like a lotta folks in-forum -- he believes capitalism is responsible for, what appears to him as, an unjust disparity and ill-gotten gain; it doesn't seem to me he opposes success in and of itself

Perhaps we should let Scott speak for himself.

I'm sure he doesn't think he opposes success, but assumes anyone who is extremely successful (like millionaires) are automatically guilty of, "ill-gotten," gain, because he just cannot believe others are capable of producing such wealth. I'm just going by what he says implies. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

[henry quirk]

Perhaps we should let Scott speak for himself.

yep

I'm sure he doesn't think he opposes success, but assumes anyone who is extremely successful (like millionaires) are automatically guilty of, "ill-gotten," gain, because he just cannot believe others are capable of producing such wealth.

that's my take, yeah: as I say, seems to me -- like a lotta folks in-forum -- he believes capitalism is responsible for, what appears to him as, an unjust disparity and ill-gotten gain