lookin' for common ground
 

a little exercise in commonality

questions: I ask, you answer

no war: just a sequence of statements & inquiry to find a little commonality

-----

An individual has a right to his life, his liberty, his property.

Don't nitpick & dissect now (we can do that later), just -- as you like -- gimme a 'yes' or 'no'.

I don't see a question.

:P

restated, for the disabled
 

Define 'property' - without that definition no sensible answer can be made.

for the nitpicky who already know this...
 

Property: that which a person owns acquired through trade (your chair for my flute?), transaction (your chair for $50?) or manufacture (go pound sand, I made my own chair).

Life: the existence (the day-to-day comings and goings, the activities and pursuits) of an individual human being, the singular, on-going event that is the individual, the person.

Liberty: the quality or state of being free (to come and go, to be active, to pursue goals as one sees fit in accordance with one's conscience), unregulated by the other.

Property acquired through inheritance is not acquired through trade, transaction, or manufacture. Property can also be acquired illegally. Property can also be acquired illegally and subsequently acquired through inheritance.

If you're implying that these rights would be "under all circumstances, without exception," then I have to say no.

Of course, everyone agrees that there are exceptions, but we don't agree what the exceptions are. That's why it isn't simple and that's why simplistic models fail to describe reality, and therefore fail to provide an adequate roadmap for navigating reality. Consideration of nuance is always going to be necessary.

for the nitpickers who already know this...
 

Property: that which a person owns, acquired through trade (your chair for my flute?), transaction (your chair for $50?), gift (here, have my chair.) or manufacture (go pound sand, I made my own chair), but not through theft (gimme your chair!).

Life: the existence (the day-to-day comings and goings, the activities and pursuits) of an individual human being, the singular, on-going event that is the individual, the person.

Liberty: the quality or state of being free (to come and go, to be active, to pursue goals as one sees fit in accordance with one's conscience), unregulated by the other except where one physically interferes with another (unjust regulation or deprivation of another's life, liberty, property).


c'mon, you legalistic bastids...nitpick some more...I can take it...I'll outlast all you sons of bitches

Your slave for my coin.

[eta] Saw your post after I posted mine :P

Ok. Define theft - rather, define the statute of limitation on theft?

In most respects I agree there are fundamental human rights - of which the right to life, the right to pursue 'happiness' - I use that in the original sense of the word - and the right not to have either your property unfairly taken, or your liberty unfairly constrained are fundamental

But - as has been pointed out, people draw the lines very differently when it comes to delineating what is or is not fair, what is or is not reasonable.

We are social animals and profoundly complex ones at that. We exist in a social compact - multiple overlapping and competing compacts, some chosen some inherited and often contested.

We can boil these things down to a sentence or two, or a list enshrined, but each one will have a library of books of interpretation - and they should.

"Your slave for my coin."
 

[b]An individual has a right to his life, his liberty, his property.[\b]

That some choose to violate the right of a man to his life, his liberty, his property (through theft, through murder, through slavery) doesn't invalidate the (moral) principle, the statement.

It simply means some folks are low down motherfuckers and a person really needs to keep his eyes open and watch his back.

In other words: your little observation ("Your slave for my coin.") is already addressed in An individual has a right to his life, his liberty, his property.

So: no gold star for you, lil Miss Nitpick.

Oops! 13 posts later, and our perfect society has devolved into a free-for-all hellscape where the strong openly prey on the weak. Sorry, weaklings, life/liberty/property is reserved for the mightiest of the mighty--try again next life.

"Define theft - rather, define the statute of limitation on theft?"
 

I defined theft (broadly and simply)...go take a gander.

And we haven't even got out of the startin' gate cuz of all the *nitpickin', so I won't be forced to jump ahead into limits on theft.

Work with what you got, or take a flyin' leap.

#

"Sorry, weaklings, life/liberty/property is reserved for the mighty--try again next life."

Doesn't have to be that way, and you don't need 10,000 laws/regs to get sumthin' better, but if you think you need to straightjacket yourself to straightjacket the bad actors then that's what you'll do (as I say: you trade off autonomy to preserve autonomy).

Can't reason with crazy.

#

"We can boil these things down to a sentence or two, or a list enshrined, but each one will have a library of books of interpretation - and they should."

Yeah, sure, but you can't even get out of the starting gate (or, rather, you can but just don't wanna). And: I asked a question...not seein' that I enshrined anything. I asked a question that you all have a ready answer for ('cept you won't offer that answer cuz -- as I say below -- you're fuckin' with me).












*which I don't believe is real...none of you are stupid...you all know exactly what i'm askin' about...all this legalistic crap is you just fuckin' with me...fine by me, dipshits..we'll play it out to this thread's sad little conclusion (consultin' my crystal ball: there ain't no common ground [cuz you don't want there to be any])

My first post was fucking with you. My second was a genuine attempt to discuss the question.

I should have the ability to get a restraining order on my emotional abuser. So, still no.

Henry, you think the world is black and white and every person who points out a shade of gray is a nitpicker.

Maybe not, but you do need some. Deciding on the range between "zero" and "ten thousand" is the conversation we must have, in order to maintain a civilization. There's no way to avoid that.

Dana: My first post was fucking with you. My second was a genuine attempt to discuss the question.

Thanks for admittin' that. I'll address your 'genuine attempt' down-post.

#

clod: I should have the ability to get a restraining order on my emotional abuser.

No. You have the ability to end abuse (emotional, physical) right now. You just won't take the bull by the balls and 'do' it. As you like.

#

glatt: Henry, you think the world is black and white and every person who points out a shade of gray is a nitpicker.

Nope.

#

Flint: you do need some (laws/regs).

Yeah, I know.

I've said the same, more than once ('sensible, minimal': ring a bell?)

##

Genuine attempts: I was pretty hot when I signed off. 'Hot' cuz I was certain I was bein' fucked with. I chilled and realized I wasn't bein' fucked with. Dana's comment about her genuine attempt concreted that realization. You folks are't nit pickin'.

No, things are much worse.

See, when someone asks me a question, I just answer. I don't ask for defintions or clarifications cuz I figure if the questioner has narrow definitions he'll incorporate them into the question.

What I expected when I asked Does an individual have a right to his life, his liberty, his property? were for folks to just tell me what they thought. I expected some to say 'yes', some to say 'no', and some to drone on. Instead I got folks clarifying to me, assuming what I meant, and bein' clever tryin' to trip me up.

Not one actual answer, not one actual 'this is what I think'.

You're all intelligent, well-read, educated folks. Unfortunately you're all also 'consequentialists'. When it comes to 'life, liberty, property' you have no moral principle. Rights, except as legal matters, don't exist for you. It's all 'utilitarianism' to you.

So: no, we have no common ground, no commonality.

Maybe not in politics.

I like pizza. Do you like pizza?

If it had been life, liberty, and pursuit of punani, I would've been all in.

Property; however, is something you can lose half of if you get divorced. Then there's that gov't right to eminent domain confliction (kinda like the gov't divorcing you). Other than that, possession is 9/10ths of the law.

glatt: Maybe not in politics. I like pizza. Do you like pizza?

See, this thread ain't about politics. That you think it is, that you think 'life, liberty, property' is political...well, that's what utilitarianism, communitarianism does to a mind.

As for pizza: yep.

#

sexobon: If it had been life, liberty, and pursuit of punani, I would've been all in. Property; however, is something you can lose half of if you get divorced. Then there's that gov't right to eminent domain confliction (kinda like the gov't divorcing you).

Ain't no right to pussy.

Divorce: pick better, be nicer, or cover your ass in advance.

Eminent domain: theft (or, coercion), pure and simple.

But there's a right to pursue it, as I said.

Most people aren't clairvoyant. Shit happens even in the best of scenarios.

Your property rights are limited to the market value of your property. Try filing an insurance claim, on something that's lost/stolen/damaged, and demanding to be compensated for sentimental value.

It's not a yes or no question, so the only yes or no (no) answer you got had the caveat "under all circumstances, without exception".

You stipulate that laws are needed, however minimal. Laws may protect life, liberty, and property, but they necessarily also restrict liberty and usually do so by threatening life, liberty, and/or property.

So, I'll agree with the previous yes or no answer- are they absolute rights? No. And add the converse: Are they rights of people subject to due process of law? Yes. The disagreement is in what the laws are.

But that's what everyone's been saying in this thread.

et tu, sex? all is lost! despair, all who enter!
 

"But there's a right to pursue it, as I said."

Yep, my mistake.

#

"Most people aren't clairvoyant. Shit happens even in the best of scenarios."

Yep, that's why I said 'cover your ass in advance' (pre-nup, anyone?)

#

"Your property rights are limited to the market value of your property."

Indeed, but irrelevant. Eminent domain isn't gov askin' to buy your land. E.D. is gov takin' your land. You get 'market value': big deal. If you didn't wanna sell, you were coerced, you were robbed (of choice, of dignity, of volition).

"It's not a yes or no question"

Not for the consequentialist, no.

#

"The disagreement is in what the laws are."

The disagreement (between us) is far deeper and wider than that.

1. Property doesn't make the priority cut to be in the same category as Life and Liberty. It didn't make the top three in the Declaration and it doesn't today.

2. If you're that dependent on property, you're not as independent as you think you are. You're not as independent as I am.

3. Adapt; or, fall by the wayside.

/------------NOTHING FOLLOWS-------------/

Or for anyone who recognizes the need for laws.Your language is more grandiose, I suppose.

"/------------NOTHING FOLLOWS-------------/"

bye

#

"Your language is more grandiose, I suppose."

bye-bye

Life as opposed to death, yes. But what you do with your liberty determines that, because what you do day to day in good conscience may piss off the wrong person. He has no right to take your life but that won't do you much good. And if he kills you in good conscience, should the government carry out a vendetta on your behalf?
Property, yes to anything in your possession which doesn't truthfully belong to someone else.

Bruce
 

:thumbsup:

There's a dedicated quote button, y'know...Just sayin'.

HEY! If you're going to say stuff like that, take it to the Horses thread.

That's what it's there for, getting on your high horse.

But, I ain't high.

Yet.

:dedhorse:

Oh the humanity

It means learning before writing.

I know.

I don't care.

##

tw,

凸(-_-)凸

##

Does an individual have a right to his life, his liberty, his property?

Yes.

What's his right based in?

Self-ownership.

Are there any limits to this right?

Yes: the other guy's right to his own life, liberty, and property.

I laugh every time I see this thread active, because of its title. Here's how it went, to me:

"I'm here to look for common ground. My belief is A. Do you agree, yes or no?"

"Yes, with reservations"

"(Angrily) We can have no common ground."

toad
 

How can a moral objectivist have common ground with moral subjectivists?

:lol::rotflol::lol::rotflol::lol:

flint nailed it
 

:thumbsup:

EtA: "We can have no common ground, because MY conditions forbid it!"

"MY conditions forbid it!"
 

Fair assessment.

:thumbsup:

So, the earnest search for common ground might go something like...

"Look, even though I believe A, and you believe A-prime, I bet we do have some things that we share. What do you think of this pipeline project that they are doing? Or, how do you apply your A-prime to your family? Maybe I do the same thing." etc.

toad
 

The thread was supposed to be about first principles (yours, mine, his, hers), not cookie recipes (or pipelines or family or...).

Don't worry about it: the thread served its purpose (still is).

Then you should have called it search for complete agreement... it's not a common ground sort of thing

toad
 

Wasn't lookin' for complete agreement...was lookin' for a comparison of principles...after a fashion: I got that (still am).

As I say: don't worry about it.

That is contempt for all others. A characteristic of an extremist. You only want to 'wreck shit'. That is your common ground. Screw everyone else.

tw
 

"That is contempt for all others."

Nope. I just like my way of quoting better.

#

"A characteristic of an extremist."

Takes one to know one.

#

"You only want to 'wreck shit'."

Some shit: yep.

#

"That is your common ground."

Nope.

#

"Screw everyone else."

Nah, not everyone, no.

You? Absolutely.

凸(-_-)凸

You can use the quote button.

He knows. He just prefers not to.

^WSS^
_______________________________________________
"He knows. He just prefers not to."
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
:D

Maybe he doesn't want anyone to read what he's written.

True words.

vWHSv
______________________________________________________
"Maybe he doesn't want anyone to read what he's written."
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
:D

I see what you did there.

####vWHSv

####I see what you did there.

####^WSS^

>WIS<