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

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

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

Post by henry quirk »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:17 am
henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:08 am Simply: you can't recognize your own ownness and ignore it in others.
And that is wrong because that would be ... hypocrisy?
it's immoral
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:38 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:17 am
henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:08 am Simply: you can't recognize your own ownness and ignore it in others.
And that is wrong because that would be ... hypocrisy?
it's immoral
What makes it immoral?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

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

Post by henry quirk »

The "definitions" of 'property' itself is an ARTIFICIAL one and more likely to be abused by those asserting what POWER rights they have.

My possession of myself is reality, not artificial. My labor- produced property is real. The gift I give or choose to receive is real. The fruit of my creativity is real. And: what power rights can one man legitimately exert against another?

Also, given your ideal is to do away with government, how can any definition of what one 'owns' mean anything except to the one who has the biggest guns?

dumping gov doesn't mean dumpin' structure: you'll need to consult this thread's companion

There is no 'moral' standard to nature

no, but there is one to man


And: I'm done, in this thread, for the night...ain't lookin' at it agin till tomorrow
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:36 am Anyone who knows that another party has knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprived another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property, has a duty to interrupt any crime in progress, call the cops, and they also have a duty to not transact with said naughty person, failure to do so is considered participation in the original crime and shares in the guilt.

you're tryin' to codify what the court of last resort will decide
No, I'm trying to unpack your 3 lines to actually get something out of them, I was told they were unambiguous and that they deliver all that is needful.

You might want to move in secret from natural rights to natural duties, but I think a light should be shone upon that action so we can see what the unwritten vices and virtues look like.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:36 am 4 branches of the Zone (there is no state): you forgot the border patrol
Whoops, my bad. So the state withers away huh?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

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

Post by Scott Mayers »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:23 am Scott,

What about inheritance also?

This is a gift, which I or you can bestow on who we like. Once given, a gift becomes property of the receiver.

Should a King not have the 'right' to own all the lands and pass this on regardless of worth to others of his own choosing?

Free men have no king.

debts of those who pass it on

here's the thing about gifts: no one has to accept them

joe wants me to inherit, wants to gift me with, his orchard: if that gift is accompanied by sizable debt, I ain't takin' it

beware the strings attached to gifts
I was rewatching an old movie with Audrey Hepburn called, "Sabrina", recently in which she was trying to determine why marrying into wealth (from relative poverty) would be respected by others. Her father, the chauffeur, said this:
"Democracy can be a wicked and unfair thing, Sabrina; Norbody poor was ever called, "democratic" for marrying somebody rich."

That is, it would be more likely interpreted by most 'others' of society that if one is offerred the potential of BENEFICIAL inheritance, one would not likely be CHOOSING 'democratically' to marry into wealth; rather, it would be more of a natural 'force' that would compel one to act upon it based upon the contrast of power it represents.
Scott Mayers wrote: For Each Person as a class of society, what 'property' do each of them have equally distributed other than one's mere body?
none
So then no 'property' should be permitted beyond one's physical capacity to hold it? That was what should be inferred.
Freedom to movement is lost when a clever 'owner', like the railroad company ones, can own passageways and portals. How is this not enslaving those isolated within the boundaries of the owner even if they do not own the land in between?
in the here & now with private property everywhere, how are such circumstances handled?

I'm out and about everyday, in a land of privately held properties: I experience no overt restrictions on goin' where I need and want to go.
This is quite unreflective of the vast variety of people everywhere and in all times. If property ownership were automatically respected without force, then the tresspassers have an equal right to assert they 'own' whatever part of the land they are on at the moment. Your happenstance of peace isn't about you should you have the fortune of 'property ownership' but about the 'floaters' who have no land. They are relative 'slaves' if you were to demand they have to pay a toll to pass or pay rent if they want to stay, or, if you just didn't like them, to be shot as tresspassers.

I think you need to ask yourself what 'ownership' means? Imagine you find some island nobody was on. You claim it a your 'own' property. But then comes along some strangers who fell off of some refuge boat and are thus 'homeless'. What would your 'property' rights mean in light of the possibility they probably don't even speak your language, let alone be aware of the meaning of 'property' beyond their experiences? That is, how can 'property' MEAN anything if you didn't have any means to define and enforce your claim and the survivors who landed upon 'your' island opt to reject your demands?

[I'll wait to respond. I should go anyways. My neck is out of order and I could use a break.]
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

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

Post by henry quirk »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:48 am
henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:38 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:17 am
And that is wrong because that would be ... hypocrisy?
it's immoral
What makes it immoral?
it puts one in the same boat as the slaver who recognizes his own ownness but chooses to ignore other's ownness

When Kitty Genovese(sic) was ben' butchered in a courtyard, all those onlookers, peerin' out from apt windows, who did nuthin' (not even make a phone call), each and every one of them, I have no doubt, were they in Genovese's place woulda screamed for mercy and help as she did, and the ghost of each (were such things possible) would be sayin' why? why couldn't someone just pick up a phone and call the cops?

one can't be one's own and reject the self-possessionof the other

elsewhere you say sumthin' about moral duty...it ain't duty, it's responsibility

the 3, and the natural rights they codify, is a two-way street
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

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

Post by henry quirk »

So the state withers away huh?

in one of the two relevant threads, I laid out how the U.S. might dissolve and several nations, including the Free Zone, rise from the wreckage (a scenario no more or less silly than the actual births of real nations)

go consult that scenario and extrapolate
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 4:28 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:48 am
henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:38 am

it's immoral
What makes it immoral?
it puts one in the same boat as the slaver who recognizes his own ownness but chooses to ignore other's ownness
That still sounds like some principle of reciprocity or hypocrisy is what makes it wrong.

Something has to get you from "I belong to me" to "I must extend that to you if I want it to apply to me and vice versa".
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:36 am Anyone who knows that another party has knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprived another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property, has a duty to interrupt any crime in progress, call the cops, and they also have a duty to not transact with said naughty person, failure to do so is considered participation in the original crime and shares in the guilt.

you're tryin' to codify what the court of last resort will decide
No, I'm trying to unpack your 3 lines to actually get something out of them, I was told they were unambiguous and that they deliver all that is needful.

You might want to move in secret from natural rights to natural duties, but I think a light should be shone upon that action so we can see what the unwritten vices and virtues look like.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

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

Post by henry quirk »

Scott: For Each Person as a class of society, what 'property' do each of them have equally distributed other than one's mere body?

me: none

scott: So then no 'property' should be permitted beyond one's physical capacity to hold it? That was what should be inferred.

I got no clue how you arrived at no 'property' should be permitted beyond one's physical capacity to hold from me sayin' there's no equal distribution of property.

Scott, really, go read this thread's companion, and this thread in its entirety: some of your questions about property and ownership will be answered.
Last edited by henry quirk on Thu Dec 30, 2021 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

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

Post by henry quirk »

Something has to get you from "I belong to me" to "I must extend that to you if I want it to apply to me and vice versa".

there is: it's at the beginning of the thread (or damn near the beginning)

I was told they were unambiguous

they are, as I delightfully discovered...I thought mebbe the 3 required unboxin' cuz you seem flummoxed...I came to understand the 3 together are unpacked, and you were and aren't confused at all: they can be applied, as is, to any circumstance you foist up as I've demonstrated over and over...your problem: you don't like the answers...they fall outside your neo-liberal sensibilities
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Post by FlashDangerpants »

didn't actually get an answer there, let's just copy paste the question again.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 4:28 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 1:48 am
What makes it immoral?
it puts one in the same boat as the slaver who recognizes his own ownness but chooses to ignore other's ownness
That still sounds like some principle of reciprocity or hypocrisy is what makes it wrong.

Something has to get you from "I belong to me" to "I must extend that to you if I want it to apply to me and vice versa".
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

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

Post by henry quirk »

didn't actually get an answer there

yeah, you did; you just don't like it

let's just copy paste the question again.

your time to waste

Something has to get you from "I belong to me" to "I must extend that to you if I want it to apply to me and vice versa".

there is: it's at the beginning of the thread (or damn near the beginning)
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 7:54 pm Something has to get you from "I belong to me" to "I must extend that to you if I want it to apply to me and vice versa".

there is: it's at the beginning of the thread (or damn near the beginning)
citation please
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

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

Post by henry quirk »

citation please
henry quirk wrote: Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:53 am Alone, a man has no need for codification: he knows he is his own; knows his life, liberty, and property are his. Alone, no one challenges this intuition. He's free.

Alone, the problems faced are stark, direct, and basic. They can be summed as staying alive.

Most men, however, do not live alone.

Each lives with, or in proximity to, others: others with wildly different strengths and weaknesses, personalities, capabilities, and notions about themselves, others, the world, and how things ought be done.

Difference breeds contempt: conflict is inevitable. Moreover, a man's right to himself, to his life, his liberty, his property is threatened.

In the company of others, this problem -- staying alive -- is multiplied and complexified. Whereas one has only to wrestle with himself for a solution, two or many bring to the table multiple solutions, many at odds with one another. This of course, introduces further conflict as each has his own notions on how to resolve difference.

To bridge those differences -- in solutions, and in solutions to differences in solutions -- between and among themselves, men consider what is common between and among them.

I suggest, as a man's intuition of ownness, of self-belonging, is the only unadulterable universal commonality, it is the basis for determining what is and isn't permissable between and among men.

A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

As a man recognizes the other's ownness: murder, enslavement, rape, theft are recognized as the violations of the other's ownness, and as impermissible, and self-defense, defense of other, defense of property are recognized as permissible, perhaps even obligatory.

The other is his own as I am my own. His life, liberty, and property are his as mine is mine. To murder him, enslave him, rape him, steal from him is wrong in the same way it would be wrong if I were murdered, enslaved, raped, or stolen from.

Questions are welcome.

-----

more to come...
Post Reply