[Nunt]

Nunt: Your use of superlatives shows you do not understand what you are talking about. Lets give a little example that shows you are wrong.

Actor A has a plot of swamp land that he has on the market for $100. Nobody is making an offer at that price. Actor B learns by whatever means that there is a huge gold deposit under Actor A's plot. Actor B offers Actor A $100 for the plot of land and the trade takes place. According to you the value of the land including its deposit of gold was only $100. Clearly that was not so. If there is anything that can be represented as the "real" value of a property of any type it is the value given to that property by its current owner.

This does not show I am wrong. Im not sure what you try to show here. Lets start from your claim that the ""real" value of a property of any type it is the value given to that property by its current owner". So at the time of the sale, the current owner believes the land to be worth $100 and the sale price is $100. So following your defintion, I find that its equivalent to what I first said. What you do is confuse the chronology. You assume Actor B to be the current owner, but at the time of the sale Actor A is the current owner. After the sale we don't know the value of the land because Actor B hasn't sold his land yet.

How I would asses developed land is again irrelevant. Eran asked a question. I answered the question he asked then you came along and claimed my answer was wrong because it did not answer the question you wanted answered. In other words:

Eran asks what 2+2 is equal to.
I say 4.
You say I am wrong because 4 is not equal to 2+3???

But it goes even further. I was not claiming I could give you the "real" value of the property (I don't think it has a "real" value). All I was claiming is that I could give an assessment of the property for the purposes of determining taxes in a way that was easy and amicable for both the tax payer and the tax collector. There is absolutely no reason that the value for purpose of tax must be in any way related to the market value only that it is amicable to all involved.

If you would go back to read the discussion, you will see that Eran first asked that question in response to a land value tax. A land value tax that would be imposed on current land owners. Also since it was previously stated that you need to improve land to become the owner of it, all land that has an owner must already be improved. If not not improved, then no owner, if no owner, then taxes are irrelevant. So your answer was pretty much irrelevant.

You really don't understand economics do you? The very basis of economics is that actions are not value neutral. That we take actions that increase our value, and that according to the philosophy's creator that by taking these purely selfish actions we benefit those around us.

1) The basis of economics is scarcity
2) Adam smith was not the creator of economics

[Eran]

acvar,
My question was indeed asked in the context of a land-value tax. As I understand it (and I might be wrong), the tax is assessed on the value of the unimproved land even if the land is actually improved.

Say you have a house on a plot of land. You paid $250,000 for the lot. One can now ask what part of the $250k was due to the improvement (the house) and what part would be the value of the land if the house was erased. The question is sometimes asked in the context of insurance, where you only need to insure the value of the improvements. For this tax's purposes we want to estimate the value of the land assuming the house wasn't there.

As Nunt correctly showed, even estimating the actual value of the property is impossible without an actual sale. How much more difficult is determining the hypothetical value of the land absent its current improvements!


As for the issue of rights, acvar, you are way off track. You say you look for "solutions in the real world". Solutions to what? To problems? And what constitutes a problem? For a situation to have a problem, you must envision multiple potential outcomes, and use some value scale to rank them. Being able to rank possible outcomes means you do have some values you use to compare potential states of the world.

Further, much political discussion (and this is a politics forum) is centred on trying to change the world. If people didn't believe in the desirability and possibility of change, the world wouldn't be where it is now. Monarchy and slavery were both abolished in the face of what must, at the time, have been considered "naive unrealistic ideas". I humbly see myself speaking in the tradition of the abolitionists of the 18th century.

[acvar]

My question was indeed asked in the context of a land-value tax. As I understand it (and I might be wrong), the tax is assessed on the value of the unimproved land even if the land is actually improved.

You most certainly did not phrase your questions so, and I have no desire to waste my time trying to find the solution of how to make a tax that is compulsory, and as such inherently unjust, just.

As for the issue of rights, acvar, you are way off track. You say you look for "solutions in the real world". Solutions to what? To problems? And what constitutes a problem? For a situation to have a problem, you must envision multiple potential outcomes, and use some value scale to rank them. Being able to rank possible outcomes means you do have some values you use to compare potential states of the world.

Great prose but what exactly does it have to do with rights? Absolutely nothing. Yes I have values, but having values has nothing to do with rights. I value the food I eat. I have no right to food. I value the property that I own. I have no right to it.

Further, much political discussion (and this is a politics forum) is centred on trying to change the world. If people didn't believe in the desirability and possibility of change, the world wouldn't be where it is now. Monarchy and slavery were both abolished in the face of what must, at the time, have been considered "naive unrealistic ideas". I humbly see myself speaking in the tradition of the abolitionists of the 18th century.

Once again beautiful prose, but beautiful prose will not help you convince the masses if your ideas are truly naive and unrealistic. Ending monarchy and slavery were neither naive or unrealistic at the time and that is why they were abandoned. Your beliefs are beautiful, and very close to the truth, but ultimately based on unrealistic principles that not even you are able to, or willing to follow.

This leads us back to the discussion that Daktoria attempted to start. He posed two questions that you were either unwilling or unable to answer. I will answer them for you.

What is a fence? Lets start by stating what a fence is not. It is not an effective barrier. A fence may keep out a wandering animal with no incentive to circumvent it, but that is about all it will do as a physical barrier. There is a reason there is a common phrase of: "A wall is only as good as the people manning it". So if it is not a physical barrier what is it? It is a signal. It is both a social, and economic signal. It's value as an economic signal is dubious, but it's value as a social signal is clear. It basically says you intend to protect your property with force. Ultimately a fence is an aggressive use of force through coercion. That I am sure was the point that Daktoria was making. By allowing the erection of fences you are accepting the aggressive use of force at the same time you are claiming the aggressive use of force is unacceptable.

Why should individuals/society respect your property rights/claims? Your obvious answer is because it is a right. Once again rights do not exist. The hungry bear does not care about your so called rights. Religions and governments constantly make this same mistake. Principles are very poor fondations for building working societies. The proper answer to the question, the only answer that will endure is the same answer as to why we ended monarchy and slavery. Because society is better off, and society is better off because the individual is better off. In other words you should respect my private property claims because by doing so you enrich yourself. That is the message you need to sell with your beautiful prose.

[Eran]

I "rights" had the property that they compel respect by others, I would have to agree with you that rights do not exist. But rights are not like that. Rights exist whether people understand, acknowledge and respect them or not.

Compare rights to "scientific truth". Scientific truth exists, even while most people over most of history were ignorant not just of its details, but also of its very notion. Certainly just because people's understanding of the truth has evolved over time doesn't negate it as a useful concept today.

Great prose but what exactly does it have to do with rights?

The relation is as follows. You have some value scale with which you assess the so-called problems of the world, as well as various potential solutions to those problems. You do that with the attitude that such problems ought to be solved where possible. In other words, solving the world's problem is a normative calling. It means some courses of action (e.g. those that will help solve those pesky problems) are better, more desirable than others. Your world view doesn't neutrally treat all actions as equally desirable - it recognizes the notion of value or desirability as applying to human action.

"Rights" are those human actions that other humans ought not resist using force. Plain and simple. Unless you believe in living in a Hobbsian state of nature in which people are (morally) free to use force against other people, you share the view that not all human action is allowed.
You must therefore have the concept of "rights", even if you and I do not necessarily agree on its exact content. Nor is it necessary that society around us agree with either one of us.

The connection between value and rights is certainly NOT that you have a right to those things (like food and property) that you value. It is much more subtle. You value living in a prosperous and peaceful world. For the world to be peaceful, people have to refrain from indiscriminate initiation of the use of force against others. There need, in other words, be rules governing the use of force. A rights framework is a framework stipulating which human actions ought not be interfered with by others using force.

Ending monarchy and slavery were neither naive or unrealistic at the time and that is why they were abandoned.

Depending on when you start looking, they certainly appeared both naive and unrealistic to their early advocates.

Why should individuals/society respect your property rights/claims? Your obvious answer is because it is a right. Once again rights do not exist.

Why should individuals/society do anything at all, especially anything that doesn't meet an immediate need of the acting person? Why, for example, should society help its weakest members? At some point, the answer is - because society (or sufficient number of sufficiently influential members thereof) feel it is the right thing to do.

Once again rights do not exist. The hungry bear does not care about your so called rights.

The hungry bear may also not care about the electro-magnetic force. But that force does exist, whether or not bears of members of society care or are even aware of its existence. Rights do not exist in the same plane as physical forces, but still their nature is that they can (and all too often are) violated or ignored.

Principles are very poor fondations for building working societies.

What makes you say that?

Because society is better off, and society is better off because the individual is better off. In other words you should respect my private property claims because by doing so you enrich yourself. That is the message you need to sell with your beautiful prose.

I usually try not to neglect the practical angle. However, it doesn't negate the principled one. Libertarianism is by far the best policy for enriching people and facilitating a prosperous and peaceful society.

It is also the morally-just foundation upon which to establish the rules governing society.

[acvar]

I "rights" had the property that they compel respect by others, I would have to agree with you that rights do not exist. But rights are not like that. Rights exist whether people understand, acknowledge and respect them or not.

Compare rights to "scientific truth". Scientific truth exists, even while most people over most of history were ignorant not just of its details, but also of its very notion. Certainly just because people's understanding of the truth has evolved over time doesn't negate it as a useful concept today.

I am sorry but you are better then this. There is no correlations between your so called rights and scientific truths. The fact that the hungry bear does not understand gravity does not grant him the ability to fly. They fact that the hungry bear does not understand that you have a right to life does indeed "give" him the ability to kill you.

The relation is as follows. You have some value scale with which you assess the so-called problems of the world, as well as various potential solutions to those problems. You do that with the attitude that such problems ought to be solved where possible. In other words, solving the world's problem is a normative calling. It means some courses of action (e.g. those that will help solve those pesky problems) are better, more desirable than others. Your world view doesn't neutrally treat all actions as equally desirable - it recognizes the notion of value or desirability as applying to human action.

Again yes I have values. We all have values. They are all subjective. But all of this is irrelevant because none of this has anything to do with "rights"

"Rights" are those human actions that other humans ought not resist using force. Plain and simple.

Says who? Did the divine tell you that? Better yet can you give me a logical argument to support that. No it is just a value claim no better or worse then any other value claim. Completely subjective and as such completely useless to anybody but you or somebody that agrees with you. This is why principles are a poor foundation for society. Values are subjective. They are fickle. The are ever shifting. They are a foundation of sand. Whatever you build on top of them collapses when they shift.

Unless you believe in living in a Hobbsian state of nature in which people are (morally) free to use force against other people, you share the view that not all human action is allowed.

I thought I had made this very clear in the past. Yes I do believe in such a world. I like to call it reality.

The connection between value and rights is certainly NOT that you have a right to those things (like food and property) that you value. It is much more subtle. You value living in a prosperous and peaceful world. For the world to be peaceful, people have to refrain from indiscriminate initiation of the use of force against others. There need, in other words, be rules governing the use of force. A rights framework is a framework stipulating which human actions ought not be interfered with by others using force.

Do wolves have rights? Do they live in social groups? Why don't wolves constantly exert force against each other? How do they operate in a state of social order without any defined rights? Do you believe like I that people are generally good, that they value social interaction, and that they will make economic decisions to procure social goods like relationships? Or do you believe like others that the only thing keeping us from ripping each others throats out is religion/government/rights/principles..... If I am wrong and those that see evil around every corner are right then how did we get to the state we are in? How did these controls come into existence in the first place? How did we find order without first having order?

Why should individuals/society do anything at all, especially anything that doesn't meet an immediate need of the acting person? Why, for example, should society help its weakest members? At some point, the answer is - because society (or sufficient number of sufficiently influential members thereof) feel it is the right thing to do.

Bzzzt! Wrong answer. Nobody does anything that does not meet an immediate need of the acting person, or at least they rationally believe it will. If you think they do you do not understand the basic concept of economics. Social and political goods are goods every bit as important as gold, steel, and oil. People are willing to expend great amounts of resources to obtain these social and political goods. If your view of economics does not consider these social and economic goods then it is very incomplete.

This whole you should do it because its the right thing to do is naive. Equally as childish as saying you should do so because I say so. You need to grow beyond it. Once you do I am sure that most of what you believe will be unchanged, but some of what you currently believe is holding you back, and preventing you from reaching your goals.

[Eran]

There is no correlations between your so called rights and scientific truths.

There is a resemblance. For scientific truth to be valid, it need not be understood or recognized. For moral truth to be valid, it need not be understood or recognized. The bear (or most humans) may thoughtlessly violate my rights. That makes my rights violated, not non-existent.

As long as we recognize that rights may (unfortunately) be violated, their existence becomes independent of the views, understandings, feelings or behaviour of members of society (not to mention bears).

By your logic, a violated right never existed. In other words, rights can never be violated. Right?

But all of this is irrelevant because none of this has anything to do with "rights"

Rights are a subset of values. Rights designate those actions that it would be unjust (a particular type of "wrong") to resist using force.

Says who?

So far, my statement that "Rights are those human actions that other humans ought not resist using force." was merely defining rights. I am yet to articulate what my view of rights is.

Completely subjective and as such completely useless to anybody but you or somebody that agrees with you.

Ah, but that's far from useless, isn't it? For the same statement can be made regarding shared values that have played a critical historical role shaping our society. From anti-monarchy and anti-slavery through equal-rights and helping the poor. All are "completely useless".

Sure - my views carry very little weight when I hold them on my own. That's precisely one of the reasons I am contributing to these forums - trying to persuade other people of my views.

I thought I had made this very clear in the past. Yes I do believe in such a world. I like to call it reality.

This isn't reality. It is a value-free version of reality in which you have no basis over which to condemn one society (say North Korea or Nazi Germany) over another. Sure - you can adopt a value-free attitude and excuse yourself from conversations dealing with the relative moral merit of different forms of societal organization. Or you can admit that you do differentiate between the moral value of different societies. Which is it?

Do wolves have rights? Do they live in social groups? Why don't wolves constantly exert force against each other? How do they operate in a state of social order without any defined rights? Do you believe like I that people are generally good, that they value social interaction, and that they will make economic decisions to procure social goods like relationships? Or do you believe like others that the only thing keeping us from ripping each others throats out is religion/government/rights/principles..... If I am wrong and those that see evil around every corner are right then how did we get to the state we are in? How did these controls come into existence in the first place? How did we find order without first having order?

Wolves do not have rights, though they often behave as if they did. Rights are a rational concept, an attempt by thinking humans to provide a rational framework for their moral intuitions. Wolves do have moral intuitions, but no rational super-structure.

Those moral intuitions stop wolves from killing each other. I never suggested defining rights is necessary for human existence (any more than understanding electro-magnetism or formal logic).

I believe people are naturally possessing of a complex set of moral intuitions and other drives. Those cause them to behave in complex ways, some of which would normally be judged as "good" or even "altruistic" while others won't. I don't think human nature can be simplified into single-word descriptions such as "good" or "evil".

Most people do indeed value voluntary relationships, and further mechanisms help strengthen and support peaceful exchanges. There is no contradiction between human nature and a theory of rights. The latter merely precisely formulates a moral code which broadly (though not in every instance) agrees with those moral intuitions which normally assist in our peaceful interactions with others.

People's underlying moral instincts are capable of very diverse expressions in different societies (just as our shared language instinct can manifest itself in endless variety of actual languages). I am a firm believer in the importance of shared political culture and corresponding institutions in shaping the actual expression of human morality. Naturally, I also believe that a free society - one in which libertarian/Rothbardian conception of property rights is broadly accepted, is the ideal society in terms of being both possible and being most conducive to human flourishing.

If your view of economics does not consider these social and economic goods then it is very incomplete.

You and I agree much more than this discussion so-far has suggested. Of course humans have a deep interest in goods which do not immediately satisfy their physical needs or wants.

This whole you should do it because its the right thing to do is naive.

And yet the entire history of human discussions regarding morality are premised on this type of argument. I argue that X is right, either implicitly or explicitly implying that you should do X because it is right. I may add additional dimensions to my persuasive efforts (e.g. showing you how you will personally benefit from doing X), but human conversation would have been much duller if people didn't try, and often succeed, persuading their fellows of the moral truth in their arguments.

You need to grow beyond it.

Do try to give me more of the benefit of the doubt. I am not as naive as you think I am.

[acvar]

First let me say you are right we are very close on our ideas. You are where I was about 3 years ago. This is why I said you still needed to do some growing. Look back on your views 3 years ago. Are they the same they are now?

Wolves are rational creatures. This shows a conceit within your. One of the things you must grow beyond. As far as social structure goes wolves are practically equal to humans. Our more advanced language skills allow our systems to be more nuanced, but not really any more advanced.

There is no resemblance between scientific truth and rights. If no life ever existed in the universe there would still be gravity. Not so for any of your rights. Rights are not real. They are imaginations. They only exist within our minds. They are purely subjective while scientific truths are absolute. Your metaphor just does not work. This was a major mistake in your argument. If you want to sway the masses you can not make this kind of mistake.

By your logic, a violated right never existed. In other words, rights can never be violated. Right?

Correct they can not be violated because they do not exist. Our belief in them does not make them so.

Rights are a subset of values. Rights designate those actions that it would be unjust (a particular type of "wrong") to resist using force.

So you admit that rights are subjective! Whoops. Values are subjective. Rights are a subset of values. Rights are subjective. Basing society on subjective opinions dooms it to collapse as those subjective opinions shift. This is why said they were useless. Not useless to the individual holding the idea, just useless as a means to organize society.

This isn't reality. It is a value-free version of reality in which you have no basis over which to condemn one society (say North Korea or Nazi Germany) over another.

Completely untrue. I do not believe in a value-free reality. I have values. You have values. Hitler had values, and so has every other tyrant murderer on the planet. The world is full of values, and those values are all personal and subjective. Do you really wish to continue in a world where society is built on subjective terms. Where people argue and even kill to prove their subjective views are the one true view? This is where your ideology leads. To the same place as every other ideology. To conflict and death. Why? Because the are not based in reality. There is absolutely no way to "prove" them, and as such eliminating the competition is the only option. When your kernel of truth is opposed to another's kernel of truth what do you do? Well in your past posts you unwittingly turned to force.

I have more to say but I must go to work. Be back in a few hours to finish...

[Eran]

Wolves are rational creatures.

This might take us off point, but I don't think I agree here. Wolves (based on my much richer experience with dogs) are not rational. They respond to emotions and drives, not to rational thought.

In addition to rational thought, humans are also capable of understanding the longer-term consequence of their actions (wolves aren't). Our language skills also allow us to communicate with other humans which in turn allows non-simultaneous trades and the division of labour. Finally, we can create societal structures both based on and to further promote our values.

Human societies also possess culture - non-biological (though biologically-based) patterns of behaviour which, across cultures, exhibit a much richer diversity than any other animal species.

There is no resemblance between scientific truth and rights. If no life ever existed in the universe there would still be gravity.

First, there would still be gravity, but there wouldn't be a scientific theory of gravity.

Rights, and values more generally, live within human minds. Language wouldn't exist without life in the universe even though it undoubtedly exists. But just because rights exist within our minds (like language and scientific theories) doesn't mean they are not real.

If you want to sway the masses you can not make this kind of mistake.

On the contrary - if you want to sway the masses, you must have conviction in the moral basis of your proposals, not just their utilitarian value.

Correct they can not be violated because they do not exist. Our belief in them does not make them so.

Is genocide wrong? If so, why (since no rights are violated)?

So you admit that rights are subjective! Whoops. Values are subjective. Rights are a subset of values. Rights are subjective.

My views are more subtle than that. Let me give it a go. I make a distinction between ethical values in general, and values associated with justice in particular. There is much overlap between the two sets - most people agree that under most circumstances it is right to do what's just. The overlap is not complete though. First, there are circumstances ("lifeboat situations") in which the right thing to do is not necessarily the just thing to do. Second, considerations of justice only tell you who gets to make certain decisions, but often not what those decisions ought to be. Justice thus covers a small subset of ethics in general.

Justice has one great advantage over ethics in general - it actually allows for objective judgements to be made. We expect (or should expect) "value-free" judges to pass judgement over questions of justice ("giving each his due").

So while I agree with you that values in general are subjective, I claim that justice isn't. The decision to follow the dictates of justice as a value is itself subjective. But once you profess to value justice, you don't have free range to redefine justice to suit your tastes. Obviously some people do, but in my opinion they are wrong in the same way that others might be wrong about logical, mathematical or even physical truths.

Do you really wish to continue in a world where society is built on subjective terms. Where people argue and even kill to prove their subjective views are the one true view? This is where your ideology leads.

Not at all. Justice, as I stated above, IS objective. It states that it is wrong to initiate the use force to establish property rights, just as it is wrong to use force to violate existing property rights. Most people agree with those principles, but are afraid of their consequences.

Following my understanding of justice, society can easily and peacefully accommodate people with sharply-differing value scales, provided only that they all agree on the principles of justice.

[acvar]

Eran you are playing word games. You are taking words that few understand the meaning of, but that are held up as something unapproachable like justice and redefining them in your own image hoping that I and others will not dare to challenge the "holy" words. Justice does not mean what you claim it means. Why have you chosen to misuse a word so blatantly? What if somebody states that justice is everybody getting their fair share? Or if they claim justice is each getting what they deserve? Whose version of justice should we take as cannon, and more importantly why? I hate words like fair, and just, and ought. They are the words of those who can not support their views with logic, reason, and evidence. It is not enough for you to claim that the non-aggression principle is just. You must show why it is just, and just because, or that is how it ought to be, or it's a right, or any other version of "because I said so" is not good enough.

Lets take this in a different direction. If 10 years ago a genie came to you and said they would remake the world by your specifications, how would you have organized society back then? Would that version of society seem reasonable to the Eran of today? Would it server your current needs? Would it reflect your current values? Of course not. You would most likely find the world that Eran of 10 years ago desired to be oppressive and inefficient. Why? Because your values, and as such your ideals are much different today then they were 10 years ago. Guess what? In 10 years the world you currently propose will seem just as oppressive and inefficient because your values and ideals will change over the next 10 years. Society's values and ideals change as surely as your individual values and ideals change. How then can we erect a stable and productive society on such an unstable foundation? Why should we accept the edict of Eran when even Eran can not accept it?

Do we choose to build society on subjective, transient values (ideals) which leads to conflict and bloodshed when there is a difference of opinion on value, or do we choose to build our society on scientific laws (economics) which are objective and eternal (though we may not completely understand them), and that lead to mutual profit when there is a difference of opinion about values?

[Eran]

I am not playing word games. I agree that my definition of justice is not universal. However, I am happy to defend it (something I wouldn't have done 10 years ago) as having (1) objectively-ascertainable meaning, and (2) a great idea.

The essence of Justice, giving each his due, is actually not that difficult to develop. A very convenient tool (but only a tool) in the elaboration of the notion of justice is (as you would expect) property rights. Property rights divides the world into domains each justly-controllable by a particular person (or group of people). The need for such division is obvious if we are to have a peaceful society.

The next question is how those property limits to be determined. The current prevailing view is that a decision made by the institutions of a democratic state. My view is that close examination reveals complete baselessness of such view. I propose to substitute, as a primary principle of justice, a form of the Non Aggression Principle which states that property rights should (1) not be violated, and (2) should not be determined through the use of force.

Most people would agree that "might makes right" is contrary to their understanding of justice. A consistent application of this principle suggests that property rights should never be secured using force. The only theory of property rights with this property is the familiar Rothbardian one. A society following those principles is the only possible just society.

Please note the distinction I made between justice and morality. Morality is hopelessly subjective. Justice isn't and need not be. Some people could consistently adopt a moral value scale which doesn't place my notion of justice at a high place. Once can envision many very different societies consistent with objective justice, with differing ideas on such things as the importance of helping the weak, of God and religion, of the value of animal life, of the best way to structure a family and bring up children, etc. I don't pretend to have a universal and/or objective answer to all moral questions.

This is my way of eating the cake and having it too. Of acknowledging the obviously subjective nature of morality, while holding on to an objective core.

Let me also acknowledge that the world I would have asked for 10 years ago is not the same as the one I would ask for today. But what of it? That doesn't prove the subjective and temporary nature of my claims. It could just as easily be explained by noting that I now know and understand much more than I did then.

Eran, btw, is not important. It is the ideas Eran voices which matter. Those ideas are not unstable.

[acvar]

[Let me also acknowledge that the world I would have asked for 10 years ago is not the same as the one I would ask for today. But what of it? That doesn't prove the subjective and temporary nature of my claims. It could just as easily be explained by noting that I now know and understand much more than I did then.[/quote]

Of course that is the case, and in 10 more years you will understand even more and many of the things your are proscribing now will seem foolish and short sided in hindsight. You are still relying on "because that is the way it ought to be", which means you don't really have a rational, logical reason for your view. You know what is "right", but you don't know why it is "right". You will if you demand it from yourself find those rational, logical reasons, and you will be able to give up the "oughts", "rights", and all the other ways of saying "just because". When you do your views will not look like they do now, but they will most likely be close, and you too will be irritated by others trying to win arguments by saying thats the way it ought to be.

[Eran]

I'm not sure you were able to differentiate my views from those of, say, Rand or Rothbard, people who do believe in objective morality. I don't.

I do believe in an objective standard for my version of Justice. I know my understanding of Justice is not identical to that of others. However, I believe it is extraordinarily important and valuable concept. Justice is a powerful concept precisely because it is objectively ascertainable, making it the ideal foundation upon which to build a society which is peaceful, prosperous AND heterogeneous.

Though I cannot prove that these principles of Justice ought to be followed (since, as we both agree, there is no objective morality), I can make a fairly plausible claim, appealing to ethical principles (especially the "might doesn't make right" mentioned before) people already hold. This pre-existing ethical principles are the bridge that connects the objective norms of Justice with subjective ethical principles.

What is your strategy for trying to win people over?

[acvar]

What is your strategy for trying to win people over?

Scatter shot. Yes some people will be moved by pretty words and you definitely have that going for you. Some will be swayed by your conviction of ideals, but those are mostly already on your side. In other words preaching your ideals is preaching to the choir. Good for motivation, but not good for converting. To convert you need to make rational appeals. Reason and logic will sway those that do not already agree with you. Someone with a different set of ideals will generally not just switch to a new set of ideals because of some pretty prose. They may very well switch when you show them hard evidence that your way is better, and by better I mean that it benefits them directly. Ultimately those living on ideals and principles are empty. Somewhere inside they know that. When you offer them something real to fill those holes the imaginary ideals and principles are much easier to give up. You must distinguish yourself from every other snake oil salesmen that they have already encountered selling empty promises of an idyllic world. You can not exaggerate your ideas. You can not idealize your system. Be honest. Lastly, and I know you will not like this with your current position, violence can be very effective.

Like it or not force is the ultimate arbitrator. It is one of the few true authorities. Simply saying that "might makes right" is wrong does not change the fact that it is true. It is not the arbiter that I would like to appear before, nor is it the arbiter that the vast majority of humans would like to appear before, but it is always there waiting for us. The goal of society then is to set up systems that allow us to solve our differences without force. To relegate force to being the last recourse not the first. Current states only change who has authority to use force. They leave it as a arbitrator of first recourse however. They are primitive. So if not the state how can we provide such things? Where there is a need the market will provide as long as there is profit to be made. There is definitely profit to be maid in solving disputes.

[Phred]

One of the main reasons you guys are talking past each other is that you're not talking about the same thing. As well, acvar is misusing the term "subjective", and has a truly bizarre idea of what the term "rights" means. And neither one of you seems to have a firm grasp on what is represented by the concept "moral". Eran, while I find the majority of your writings to be intelligent and bang on, this is not the first time I have been unable to follow your arbitrary and ultimately nonexistent "distinction" between "morality" and "justice". To you, your version of "justice" is of some transcendental importance. To me, it is gibberish. And unnecessary gibberish at that - there is no need to invent finer and finer subslices of "moral". Either a human is acting immorally or he is not.

I suggest you both retrace your steps, retreat from the deep weeds you've blundered into far from the original path, and refocus on what is the main issue of the original post - is there a method by which a human may rightfully come to own a parcel of land? Eran, I have read past posts of yours demonstrating convincingly how the "homesteading" process is the only legitimate method by which initial ownership can be established. I don't understand why you feel it necessary to do anything more than restate it, since it addresses squarely the reservations the OP has raised.



Phred

[acvar]

I have no way shape or form misused the term subjective. Apparently you need to look up its meaning. I have claimed over and over that the values an individual places on ideals (or anything for that matter) is subjective. In other words as you said "To you, your version of "justice" is of some transcendental importance. To me, it is gibberish." Pretty bad argument style to declare someone in error then immediately say the exact same thing. The values that Eran places on his ideals only exist in his mind. Others may also value those ideals, but they each value them at their own individual level, as such they are subjective. Value is an aspect of the valuers mind not of the object being valued. That is the primary definition of subjective.

My ideas of rights are not bizarre. The idea that rights actually exists is what is bizarre. Most of the world for most of time had no concept of rights as many see them today. Please explain to me in your own words just what a right is?

[Phred]

Please explain to me in your own words just what a right is?

Eran has already done so, more than once, but I'll give one of several possible explanations that is worded a bit differently from Eran's but describes the exact same underlying concept: "Rights" are those actions performed by humans in the presence of other humans which other reasonable humans - when observing them - recognize as representing no threat to their own ability to exercise their own set of similar actions.

As such, rights do in fact exist, even though at various points in time in various historical societies, these actions were not always consistently left free of forceful reprisal. Even today, in modern Western societies, there are numerous examples of such actions which government refuses to recognize as representing no threat to the ability of their citizens to exercise their own set of actions - see the free speech restrictions in countries such as Canada or the UK regarding opinions the government has determined might "offend" some listeners as just one of myriad examples. The blasphemy laws in various theocratic societies would be another example. And of course the innumerable victimless crime laws criminalizing prostitution or gambling or the ingestion of certain substances.

Your position is that choosing which actions fit this criteria and which don't is a subjective choice. It isn't. It is not subjective to recognize that raping infants is a violation of their rights. Nor is it subjective to point out that expressing an opinion on the competence (or lack thereof) of a public official has no effect on the ability of someone in the next county to trade his clay pot for a chicken. The closest one can come to the "subjective" argument is to point out (correctly) that some people may sometimes disagree over exactly which actions performed under exactly which circumstances qualify as an action which is an actual threat to other humans. But the fact that such borderline situations arise doesn't invalidate the concept of rights, nor does it mean that it is "subjective" to declare murder an act which is a threat to other humans. Humans have the right not to be murdered by other humans, and pointing this out is not an act of subjectivity.

Most of the world for most of time had no concept of rights as many see them today.

But this isn't true at all. It is common knowledge that almost every human society of which we have knowledge adhered to the same core set of beliefs - that their members had the right to not be murdered or assaulted or stolen from. This has been the case regardless of the geographical location of these societies, their level of technological sophistication, or their religious beliefs. So near-universal is this core set of rights that the very few (long extinct and no wonder) societies which did not recognize this core set of rights are objects of fascinated study by anthropologists for that very reason.


Phred

[Eran]

I have struggled for several years with the following dilemma. On the one hand, it seems impossible to defend objective morality. Hume's insight is as solid as it has ever been. On the other hand, the rightness of libertarian ethics seems more than a mere personal preference. Rothbard and Hoppe have written much about supposedly-objective foundations to their (and my) property rights theory.

In trying to reconcile the two perspectives, I came up with the notion that Justice (properly understood) serves as a bridge. By Justice I refer to a system that supports people's efforts to peacefully co-exist. Explicitly and diametrically opposing the "might is right" perspective, a just system would never allow people to benefit from initiating force against others. Accepting this fundamental principle, one can following Rothbard, Hoppe and others towards a full-fledged coherent understanding of the workings of property rights as a critical mental tool for determine the dictates and demands of Justice.

Justice (in the sense above) has clear and objective meaning (though it still requires understanding of local context and circumstances to shape the specific legal precepts that govern the resolution of practical disputes). The "bridge" linking the objective normative theory of Justice with the subjective normative dictates of libertarianism is through the acceptance of the NAP as a moral principle. There is no objective "proof" that the NAP is indeed the "right" principle. Adopt it, and one immediately has the benefit of the coherent theory of Justice to resolve disputes amongst members of society without the need to reach any agreement on broader value preferences.


Without a separate notion of justice, it is impossible to reconcile the subjective nature of ethics with the characterization of libertarianism as the normative theory that "should" be universally applied, that is "correct" even when rejected by the majority of voters.

Btw, I like Phred's definition of Rights. Is there a well-developed argument to show that it necessarily leads to a libertarian conception of rights?

[Phred]

Without a separate notion of justice, it is impossible to reconcile the subjective nature of ethics with the characterization of libertarianism as the normative theory that "should" be universally applied, that is "correct" even when rejected by the majority of voters.

And here's where you go off the track. Ethics is not inherently subjective in nature. It is entirely possible to support a moral code of behavior (or ethical code of behavior, if you prefer) that is developed objectively. You seem to confuse actual morality (it is immoral to steal someone's shoes) with societal custom (it is "immoral" to show one's bare ankles in public). Developing an objective moral code necessarily severely limits those actions which are deemed immoral. In fact, ultimately the only such actions turn out to be those associated with the initiation of (or credible threat to initiate) the use of physical force against another human (or another human's property) and its associated corollaries: fraud, theft, etc.

This is why I find your approach so baffling sometimes. You demonstrate a remarkable grasp of the issues and argue as if you understand them fully, but every now and then you come up with something obviously at odds with your previous arguments, such as your puzzling belief that there is no objective proof that the initiation of force in human affairs (the justification for using the NAP as the foundation for developing an objective moral code) is a bad thing. Of course there is such proof! Simple observation of the world around you delivers countless demonstrations of this fact (yes, Eran... it is a fact) every day. If you honestly believe there is no objective way to demonstrate that the initiation of force in human interaction is a threat to the furtherance of the existence of the victim of that force, then of course you will cast around for alternatives such as your own idiosyncratic definition of "justice". But there is no need to do it. The Non-Aggression Principle is all you need. It has stood the test of literally millennia of human experience, which is why (as I pointed out earlier) it comprises the heart of the moral code of almost every human society that has ever existed.



Phred

[acvar]

You are both just playing word games. You are latching on to a term with strong positive connotations (rights/justice), completely ignoring their actual denotations, giving them your own denotations, and I guess hoping that nobody realizes the game you are playing. This is not the way to win arguments or sway the views of people. It is a form of deception. It is lying.

Phred: I am sorry but you are simple wrong about the acceptance of certain "near universal" moral ideas. You have been misinformed. I have neither the time nor energy to prove you wrong here. There are plenty of books on the subject.

Eran: Why go to all the trouble. Why do you need a moral argument at all. Why not just make an objective argument about results. Your way is not the right way because it is right (very circular and proving nothing). Your way is right because it produce better results in the real world. When all your opponents are offering up are ideals, and empty promises you should be offering up real world results. I just don't care about the value you place on your ideas. I care how those ideas will effect/benefit me, and almost everybody has the same mindset as me.

[Phred]

You are both just playing word games. You are latching on to a term with strong positive connotations (rights/justice), completely ignoring their actual denotations, giving them your own denotations, and I guess hoping that nobody realizes the game you are playing.

But that's just it - I am not the one playing word games here, you are. You claim there is no such concept as rights, ignoring the fact that tens of billions of humans who lived before you knew there was in fact such a thing. You're not just arguing over what humans may use as a method for discovering the extent of human rights: the "divine revelation" model vs. the "majority rule" model vs the "objective rationalization" model, you are denying the very concept itself. As such, your arguments cannot be taken seriously.

You appear to be unable to distinguish between the concepts of "abilities" and "rights". The concept of "rights" is a subset of the concept of "abilities", but that doesn't make it an invalid concept, anymore than the fact that "humor" is a subset of the concept "communication" makes humor an invalid concept. Yes, it is true that in the absence of other humans, the concept of "rights" becomes irrelevant, but you will note the same is true of humor. And sex. And currency. And many many other concepts. Just because a concept gains relevance only in the presence of a group of humans doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist. Or even that it is subjective.

Phred: I am sorry but you are simple wrong about the acceptance of certain "near universal" moral ideas. You have been misinformed. I have neither the time nor energy to prove you wrong here. There are plenty of books on the subject.

Actually, there aren't. The scarcity of human societies which lack this core concept of rights is the reason there are almost no books about societies which didn't adhere to that core: no subject matter.



Phred