Mother of all philosophy

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Do you agree?

Poll ended at Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:57 pm

Yes
0
No votes
No
3
100%
 
Total votes: 3

gdbismi
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:19 pm

Mother of all philosophy

Post by gdbismi »

This might appear as a stupid thought to most of you. But this is the truth, no matter what your argument is.
"By birth every living organism has equal right on every atom in this world( or whatever an atom can be subdivided into)" except maybe another man's wife, children, innerwear and some other exceptions.
For example if someone digs out something somewhere from the earth and uses it for his or her personal gains, that is totally unacceptable. That includes said governments taxing people. Shouldn't the people be the ones asking for royalties since their resources are being used and they have an equal share of everything.
BUT SINCE MOST OF YOU ARE IN A POSITION IN WHICH YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE A LARGER PIECE OF CAKE, THESE LINES ARE AGAINST YOU. COZ U KNOW " SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST".
But if you are the one feeding on crumbs then .....

Next thing : "The Right To Roam"

No restrictions for anyone to visit anywhere.
Except maybe children near nuclear rods, coz that's dangerous.
And one more thing. Separation of people by nations is utter stupidity, if you ask me. In a perfect world I think there will never be such a separation, except in the case of identifying geographical areas,IN case global positioning is a little geeky, and not how the current world is.

Although the implementations of these thoughts may prove chaotic, this is the truth and this will set you free. jk.
enjoy and have a happy life.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"equal right"

pffftt!

No such animal as 'equal'.

No such animal as 'right'.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re:

Post by Arising_uk »

henry quirk wrote:...

No such animal as 'right'.
hmm... a 'right' is a very human animal. I thought(heard) that it's the link between ethics and politics and applies to individuals.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

A 'right' is made up thing

Name any 'right' you care to, and I'll shred it.

As I say elsewhere (as it pertains to equality, it also pertains to 'right'): fictions can be useful things but never should a fiction be mistaken for reality.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Mother of all philosophy

Post by thedoc »

I think my comment on 'The Couch' fits here as well.

(quote Henry)
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

HA!

Mine too, Doc... ;)
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Mother of all philosophy

Post by Arising_uk »

The right to ones property?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

Nope.

Joe owns X.

Jack wants X.

Jack takes Joe's X.

Joe can try to take X back himself (and succeed or fail).

Joe can have a proxy (a cop; a lawyer; a hired goon/thug/enforcer) try to take X back (and succeed or fail).

Joe can live with the loss.

At no point does Joe's relationship with X (owning it) confer special properties or inherent protections to Joe or X.

Joe only owns X 'cause he possesses it and can successfully defend that possession.

If Jack steals X and successfully defends his possession then Jack owns X (this is especially true if Joe is unaware who took X).

Ownership of X (property) is like any other right, that is: it's a fiction folks hold as 'true' for practical reasons...'I'll refrain from taking your X and you refrain from taking my Y and we both can go off and do sumthin' else besides defend our shit 24/7'.

Again: there's nuthin' intrinsic to the possession of X by Joe that confers special properties or inherent protections to Joe or X.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Mother of all philosophy

Post by thedoc »

"Right of ownership" as well as other "rights" is determined by whoever has the biggest 'stick'.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Mother of all philosophy

Post by Arising_uk »

Ayn Rand would disagree with you. This is the 'morality' of the thug and animal not the producer and human. The producer, being human, acts morally and rationally and has politics and government to ensure might isn't right.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"Right of ownership" as well as other "rights" is determined by whoever has the biggest 'stick'."

HA!

Yep...exactly.

##

"Ayn Rand would disagree with you."

So what?

She ain't my goddess in polyester.

#

"The producer, being human, acts morally and rationally..."

HA!

'Sometimes' acts reasonably...never "morally and rationally".

#

"...and has politics and government to ensure might isn't right."

'Might makes/is right' is reality.

"politics and government" are the mechanisms by which fictions (mostly useful) are codified and enforced through force (might making right).

Again: don't mistake the useful fiction for reality.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Mother of all philosophy

Post by thedoc »

Arising_uk wrote:Ayn Rand would disagree with you. This is the 'morality' of the thug and animal not the producer and human. The producer, being human, acts morally and rationally and has politics and government to ensure might isn't right.

In a country ruled by law, the government is the thug with the 'big stick' who acts for those who are favored by the law. No-one has 'rights' except those applied by force. 'Might is right', the only kind humanity has. From prehistoric times when the club and the flint knife bought 'rights' till now when the government who acts for those who make the first claim, might makes 'rights'.

In a country not ruled by law, it is the person with the gun, or knife, or club who strikes first who has the 'rights', and the others are dead, or should be.
gdbismi
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:19 pm

Re: Mother of all philosophy

Post by gdbismi »

In a well organised government, a person works hard(or does a well paying job). He earns enough money to build a house, take care of his family etc,,,
Work can be generally defined as something that results in the modification of something, be it software, hardware.....

Modifications on a higher level can be considered as inventions or discoveries and subsequent usage of these as well as some "generally known for generations work" comprise jobs.

My point is, "DOES THE MODIFICAION OF A NATURAL RESOURCE OR THE MODIFICAION OF AN ALREADY MODIFIED RESOURCE NOTWITHSTANDING INTELLECT, EARN MAN THE RIGHT TO HAVE ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OVER SOMETHING"
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8961
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"DOES THE MODIFICAION OF A NATURAL RESOURCE OR THE MODIFICAION OF AN ALREADY MODIFIED RESOURCE NOTWITHSTANDING INTELLECT, EARN MAN THE RIGHT TO HAVE ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OVER SOMETHING"

Nope.

What 'earns' any one, any thing, is his or her capacity to claim 'it' and his or capacity to successfully defend that claim.

Nuthin' else matters.

#

"ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP"

No such animal...at best: I control 'this', possess 'this', 'here and now'.

Tomorrow: who knows?
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re:

Post by thedoc »

henry quirk wrote: "ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP"
No such animal...at best: I control 'this', possess 'this', 'here and now'.
Tomorrow: who knows?

I have worked and earned money that I have bought things with. I have a property and a house with my things in it. I have locks on my doors, there is no such thing as "Absolute Ownership". If there were, why don't I still have the things that were in my old house before it burned down. After the fire, we had nothing but our vehicles and what we were wearing at the time, what happened to the ownership of all those things in the house?
Post Reply