Off-Topic Posts from "Is taxation by big non-local governments non-consensual or consensual?"

[GE Morton]

Also "righteously" is not "factual". It is "the quality of being morally right or justifiable."

I suppose if someone is God, he might consider this "factual". Is that you, GE? It appears to be your opinion of yourself.

Oh, stop. Whether or not an acquisition inflicted loss or injury on someone else is a factual question. If it does it is immoral, unrighteous; if it does not is it moral, righteous. Or do you have some Newspeak understanding of those terms also?

[Ecurb]

Also "righteously" is not "factual". It is "the quality of being morally right or justifiable."

I suppose if someone is God, he might consider this "factual". Is that you, GE? It appears to be your opinion of yourself.

Oh, stop. Whether or not an acquisition inflicted loss or injury on someone else is a factual question. If it does it is immoral, unrighteous; if it does not is it moral, righteous. Or do you have some Newspeak understanding of those terms also?

Nonsense. "Loss" is not a factual question. Look at intellectual property. The only "loss" infringement on copyrights or patents imposes is the imaginary loss of money which might happen in the future. And the only reason money is lost is because of copyrights or patents, which are culturally constituted. On the other hand, the loss of free speech on the part of the plagiarist must also be considered.

In addition "acquisition" is a nebulous concept. Does one "acquire" life, or liberty? That would be an idiosyncratic use of the word. One acquires property, or skills.

If someone discovers an apple tree, and thus acquires it, anyone who passes by in the future has lost the right to eat the apples. How is that not equally a loss as the loss of potential money for the patent holder?

[GE Morton]

Nonsense. "Loss" is not a factual question.

Egads. Well then, I guess all tort law is baseless and should be abolished.

You say the silliest things.

Look at intellectual property. The only "loss" infringement on copyrights or patents imposes is the imaginary loss of money which might happen in the future.

Er, no, that loss is not imaginary. It is highly probable, and if the plagiarist makes any money from the theft, it thereby becomes a certainty.

And the only reason money is lost is because of copyrights or patents, which are culturally constituted. On the other hand, the loss of free speech on the part of the plagiarist must also be considered.

You seem to be assuming the right to free speech is absolute, which, of course, it is not. The right to speak, like all other rights to act, are limited (in social settings) to acts which impose no injuries or losses on other moral agents.

If someone discovers an apple tree, and thus acquires it, anyone who passes by in the future has lost the right to eat the apples. How is that not equally a loss as the loss of potential money for the patent holder?

Question-begging. There is no "right to eat an apple" until you've taken possession of a previously unowned apple. And your objection leads to a reductio ad absurdum, as shown by Nozick decades ago: if Alfie can't take an apple because it would deprive Bruno of the opportunity to take it, then Bruno can't take it either, since then Chauncey would be deprived of that opportunity. Etc. So no one can take the apple, and everyone starves.

[Ecurb]

Egads. Well then, I guess all tort law is baseless and should be abolished.

You say the silliest .

Thanks. I try. I'll return the compliment. Your notion that if loss can sometimes be determined it can never be indeterminate is both silly and illogical. Case closed.

Er, no, that loss is not imaginary. It is highly probable, and if the plagiarist makes any money from the theft, it thereby becomes a certainty.

.

Wrong again. There is no qarantee that the patent or copyright holder could have made any money off his intellectual property, as anyone who has ever been in business could verify.

Question-begging. There is no "right to eat an apple" until you've taken possession of a previously unowned apple. And your objection leads to a reductio ad absurdum, as shown by Nozick decades ago: if Alfie can't take an apple because it would deprive Bruno of the opportunity to take it, then Bruno can't take it either, since then [Chauncey would be deprived of that opportunity. Etc. So no one can take the apple, and everyone starves.

There is no right to eat the apple. Instead, there is an ability to eat the apple. Thus the reductio becomes irrelevant. The only right involved is the property right which prevents Alfie from eating the apple. Either anyone can eat the apple, or only the owner can determine who may eat the apple. Of course it is true that if one person eats the apple, nobody else can. But so what? That's always true of any consumable and property rights have nothing to do with it.

[Good_Egg]

Of course it is true that if one person eats the apple, nobody else can. But so what? That's always true of any consumable...

What follows is that if your concept of harm includes denying other people the opportunity to do the same thing then your concept is too broad.

There is a sense of "harm" in which you do no harm by eating an apple thereby denying others the opportunity to do likewise, and you do no harm by marrying a woman thereby denying others the opportunity to do likewise (for as long as you both shall live), and you do no harm by building a house on a hilltop thereby denying others the opportunity to make use of the same spot for the same purpose.

And it is in that narrower sense that GE's oft-stated ethic of not harming others is meant.

An ethic of not harming others in that broader sense of deprivation of opportunity is unworkable. Because you consume, as do we all, and doubtless have every intention of continuing to do so....

[GE Morton]

Thanks. I try. I'll return the compliment. Your notion that if loss can sometimes be determined it can never be indeterminate is both silly and illogical. Case closed.

That is not "my notion." It is your words you're putting into my mouth. And your previous statement, which I ridiculed, was not, " . . . loss can never be in determinate." It was, "Loss is not a factual question." You're shucking and jiving here.

Er, no, that loss is not imaginary. It is highly probable, and if the plagiarist makes any money from the theft, it thereby becomes a certainty.

Wrong again. There is no qarantee that the patent or copyright holder could have made any money off his intellectual property, as anyone who has ever been in business could verify.

You're not addressing the comment. I said that if a thief sees the work as worth stealing, then it is highly probable that it has some economic value, which will be lost to the creator. I said nothing about a "guarantee." More shucking and jiving.

Question-begging. There is no "right to eat an apple" until you've taken possession of a previously unowned apple. And your objection leads to a reductio ad absurdum, as shown by Nozick decades ago: if Alfie can't take an apple because it would deprive Bruno of the opportunity to take it, then Bruno can't take it either, since then [Chauncey would be deprived of that opportunity. Etc. So no one can take the apple, and everyone starves.

There is no right to eat the apple.

That's not what you claimed above: "If someone discovers an apple tree, and thus acquires it, anyone who passes by in the future has lost the right to eat the apples."

Instead, there is an ability to eat the apple. Thus the reductio becomes irrelevant.

LOL. Sure its's irrelevant, because you're now denying what you earlier asserted.

Of course it is true that if one person eats the apple, nobody else can. But so what? That's always true of any consumable and property rights have nothing to do with it.

My, how myopic. So if you pick an apple from an unowned tree in the morning, with the intent of eating it for lunch later, you would have no right to it, and thus no valid complaint if I take it from you before then?

How silly. You might want to read Locke's 2nd Treatise again: "He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he ate? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could."

[Ecurb]

That is not "my notion." It is your words you're putting into my mouth. And your previous statement, which I ridiculed, was not, " . . . loss can never be in determinate." It was, "Loss is not a factual question." You're shucking and jiving here.

Baloney. I would accuse you of the same, were it not racist. My comment about loss was in response to your claim that acquisition without creating harm or loss is a factual question, which it clearly (sometimes) is not.

Er, no, that loss is not imaginary. It is highly probable, and if the plagiarist makes any money from the theft, it thereby becomes a certainty.

Wrong again. There is no qarantee that the patent or copyright holder could have made any money off his intellectual property, as anyone who has ever been in business could verify.

You're not addressing the comment. I said that if a thief sees the work as worth stealing, then it is highly probable that it has some economic value, which will be lost to the creator. I said nothing about a "guarantee." More shucking and jiving.

Nonsense. Economic value to whom? If the plagiarist derives value, we cannot assume the copyright holder would have. There may very well have been no loss.

[Ecurb]

My, how myopic. So if you pick an apple from an unowned tree in the morning, with the intent of eating it for lunch later, you would have no right to it, and thus no valid complaint if I take it from you before then?

How silly. You might want to read Locke's 2nd Treatise again: "He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he ate? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could."

You over-emphasize the idea of "rights", and "property". In many societies the apples and acorns must be shared. These are the standard norms and conventions in these cultures. Are these people idiots? Are they "shucking and jiving" about their rights (per your racist comment)?

Any number of possible norms and convention may apply, just as they may for patents and copyrights. You may argue that modern capitalist norms conduce fair play, or human welfare. But when you (or Locke) ask, "When did they begin to be his?" the only reasonable answer is, "That depends on the laws, norms, and mores of the society in which he lives."

[GE Morton]

You're not addressing the comment. I said that if a thief sees the work as worth stealing, then it is highly probable that it has some economic value, which will be lost to the creator. I said nothing about a "guarantee." More shucking and jiving.

Nonsense. Economic value to whom? If the plagiarist derives value, we cannot assume the copyright holder would have. There may very well have been no loss.

"Economic value" means, "Value to someone," i.e., that there is a demand for the good. If Alfie bought the good from the thief, then he likely would also have bought it from the producer, who, because of the theft, lost that sale.

You're still shucking and jiving, trying to deny the obvious.

[GE Morton]

My, how myopic. So if you pick an apple from an unowned tree in the morning, with the intent of eating it for lunch later, you would have no right to it, and thus no valid complaint if I take it from you before then?

How silly. You might want to read Locke's 2nd Treatise again: "He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he ate? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could."

You over-emphasize the idea of "rights", and "property". In many societies the apples and acorns must be shared. These are the standard norms and conventions in these cultures.

Oh, you're quite right. Many pre-civilized, kinship-based tribal societies had such communitarian bonds. But, alas, the members of modern civilized societies don't, and expecting the members of the latter to behave like members of the former is an atavism, the "organic fallacy." Modern societies are not tribes, brotherhoods, giant communes, or "big happy families;" they are randomly-assembled groups of unrelated, independent, autonomous individuals who have no natural bonds, no shared personal histories or cultural backgrounds, no common interests, and no overriding concern for one another's welfare. Nor are its members bound by any sort of "social contract," explicit or implicit. The notion of "rights" only becomes important, and indeed necessary, in societies with the latter structure.

[Ecurb]

You're not addressing the comment. I said that if a thief sees the work as worth stealing, then it is highly probable that it has some economic value, which will be lost to the creator. I said nothing about a "guarantee." More shucking and jiving.

Nonsense. Economic value to whom? If the plagiarist derives value, we cannot assume the copyright holder would have. There may very well have been no loss.

"Economic value" means, "Value to someone," i.e., that there is a demand for the good. If Alfie bought the good from the thief, then he likely would also have bought it from the producer, who, because of the theft, lost that sale.

You're still shucking and jiving, trying to deny the obvious.

You can't have it both ways. If the Capitalist Economy is rational at determining value, why do companies pay their sales people and marketers so much? Could it be, perhaps, that knowing how to sell the product is as valuable as the product itself? The original author or patent holder may lack the skill to sell the product, and thus may have lost nothing by the so called "theft".

[Ecurb]

Oh, you're quite right. Many pre-civilized, kinship-based tribal societies had such communitarian bonds. But, alas, the members of modern civilized societies don't, and expecting the members of the latter to behave like members of the former is an atavism, the "organic fallacy." Modern societies are not tribes, brotherhoods, giant communes, or "big happy families;" they are randomly-assembled groups of unrelated, independent, autonomous individuals who have no natural bonds, no shared personal histories or cultural backgrounds, no common interests, and no overriding concern for one another's welfare. Nor are its members bound by any sort of "social contract," explicit or implicit. The notion of "rights" only becomes important, and indeed necessary, in societies with the latter structure.

I'm generally "quite right". Thanks for the acknowledgement.

Thanks also for acknowledging that rights are unimportant (irrelevant) on Crusoe's Island. You've finally come to your senses!

Of course there is a grain of truth in your depiction of modern civilized societies. However, you are clearly over simplifying. Some members of civilized societies have communitarian bonds; some live in communes; some belong to big happy families; some have shared personal histories and cultural backgrounds. This is clear and obvious. So although your distinction between knship-based, tribal societies and modern societies is reasonable, your claims about the distinctions are over blown and far from universal.

In addition,"rights" are clearly a sort of "social contract". They are meaningless unless people "contract" to respect them. So you are contradicting yourself.

[GE Morton]

You're not addressing the comment. I said that if a thief sees the work as worth stealing, then it is highly probable that it has some economic value, which will be lost to the creator. I said nothing about a "guarantee." More shucking and jiving.

Nonsense. Economic value to whom? If the plagiarist derives value, we cannot assume the copyright holder would have. There may very well have been no loss.

"Economic value" means, "Value to someone," i.e., that there is a demand for the good. If Alfie bought the good from the thief, then he likely would also have bought it from the producer, who, because of the theft, lost that sale.

You're still shucking and jiving, trying to deny the obvious.

You can't have it both ways. If the Capitalist Economy is rational at determining value, why do companies pay their sales people and marketers so much?

What on Earth are you talking about? What does your question there have to do with what I said above?

I certainly never said that "capitalist economies are rational at determining value." No economy, "capitalist" or otherwise, determines value. Individuals determine value, and those values vary from individual to individual. A good X has an economic value IFF some person places a value on it, i.e., is willing to give up something --- time, effort, money, some other good --- in order to secure X.

Could it be, perhaps, that knowing how to sell the product is as valuable as the product itself? The original author or patent holder may lack the skill to sell the product, and thus may have lost nothing by the so called "theft".

Ah. So stealing from the ignorant is OK? Er, yes, the producer suffers a loss, whatever his marketing skills or lack of them. Values are subjective. If Alfie deems X to have value, then it does. If Bruno steals X, then Alfie suffers a loss.

[Ecurb]

What on Earth are you talking about? What does your question there have to do with what I said above?

I certainly never said that "capitalist economies are rational at determining value." No economy, "capitalist" or otherwise, determines value. Individuals determine value, and those values vary from individual to individual. A good X has an economic value IFF some person places a value on it, i.e., is willing to give up something --- time, effort, money, some other good --- in order to secure X....


Ah. So stealing from the ignorant is OK? Er, yes, the producer suffers a loss, whatever his marketing skills or lack of them. Values are subjective. If Alfie deems X to have value, then it does. If Bruno steals X, then Alfie suffers a loss.

OK, GE literalist. But since no individual valued Alfie's intellectual "property", and since it is unlikely anyone ever would have had it not been plagiarized, Alfie suffered no loss from the plagiarism (by calling it "theft" you are assuming exactly what is up for discussion). Wherein was Alfie's economic "loss"? Also, did he invent all those words he wrote, or was he "plagiarizing" them from others?

[GE Morton]

Thanks also for acknowledging that rights are unimportant (irrelevant) on Crusoe's Island.

If you mean morally relevant, I've never claimed otherwise.

Of course there is a grain of truth in your depiction of modern civilized societies. However, you are clearly over simplifying. Some members of civilized societies have communitarian bonds; some live in communes; some belong to big happy families; some have shared personal histories and cultural backgrounds. This is clear and obvious. So although your distinction between knship-based, tribal societies and modern societies is reasonable, your claims about the distinctions are over blown and far from universal.

Oh, there are many collectives within civilized societies --- thousands of them. The society as whole, however, is not one. Civilized societies are "societies of strangers." And expecting people to relate to strangers as they relate to family members, friends, teammates, colleagues, etc., is unrealistic.

In addition,"rights" are clearly a sort of "social contract". They are meaningless unless people "contract" to respect them. So you are contradicting yourself.

How silly. You can't possibly "contract to respect rights" unless you already know what the term means and what are the truth conditions for rights claims.

Whether P has a right to X is a factual question. Whether others ought to respect that right (if it exists) is a moral question, the answer to which depends upon some moral theory. No "contracts" are involved in either question.