Property is by nature a human concept which can't have any attributes "by nature".Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Property is by nature a human concept which can't have any attributes "by nature".Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Well done. :heart: Now, what do you say about human concepts like civil rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
They are a human achievement that need to prove themselves every day. If you believe they are right, by means and cause, you don't have to rely on sacrosanct axioms.
Language barriers? I'm not sure what you mean about civil rights. Sounds like you are saying that civil rights are a human concept that needs to be proven every day. Day after day.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Well, yes. It doesn't need to be proven day by day that they are a human concept. But their "correctness" "rightness" whatever you want to call it, is something that is not given "by nature" but by consensus.
More clarification is needed, to make sure it's not a language barrier.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
One of our US constitutional premises is that All People Are Equal, not because the government says so, but because that's part of our inalienable rights, things we are born with.
I'm not sure what you mean by giving something by consensus.
Well the Swiss constitution is voted by the people. It can be changed by the people (and the majority of the people of the states), every single letter of it.
Edit: One a second thought, it doesn't matter if the constitution is voted by poll or with ones feet. There is a consensus in America about rightfulness of the constitution in general.
You are a small nation, while the USA is 300 million people over 50 states. Even a "liberal" state like California had a referendum vote against same-sex marriage. It was Proposition 8 (or Proposition H-8) We still have states that can vote for or against civil rights, which is kind of frightening if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Well as I said in the edit, even if you don't vote for it, it's hard to uphold something over time that meets large disagreement. And I totally disagree with your statement "you are born with it". It's the society/government that provides you those rights. Simply and alone by the fact, that if there is no government, no-one will enforce your rights. A law/right/duty that is not enforced is nil and nothing.
So lets go back to property rights. Who enforces those? Damn right, the government. The only right that exists on its own is the right of the stronger.
We are born a certain race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation. Those are not things we can change, or should feel compelled to change. We enter the world as we are, without choice of parents or genes, let alone economic status or heritage, or what country we're born in or which language we learn first.....that's why civil rights aren't something to be voted upon by the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
In our rapidly changing, inter-connected world this belief is more important than ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Absolutely I would advocate for private property rights. If the majority of people abused the freedom of speech, would you still be an advocate of it?Quote:
If a majority of US land/property is eventually owned by foreign investors , would you still be espousing private property rights? Or would you advocate for the minority that doesn't own any property?
Are you saying that animals don't have territory, or property?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Have you ever owned a dog?
Your dog is able to sell his property, rent it to others or inherit it to his pups? "Territory" and "Property" are very different concepts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Dogs often choose who they allow on their property, who can play with their toys, who can eat their food. Dogs, (and other animals) have a clear understanding of ownership and property.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Dogs don't write literature either, but that doesn't mean they don't communicate.
As I said, there is no choice to this. Those right have to be enforced by someone otherwise they are worth nothing. So you are born in China, what does your civil rights you are born with help you? Nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
No, Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
They have a territory, but don't own them. If a bigger dog wants the territory it takes it. What dogs have is the right of the stronger.
This happens to humans as well, therefore property doesn't exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Absurd.
If someone starts to live in my apartment I call the police. Does your dog do this as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Property rights are enforced by the government. You can sue someone who brakes those rights.
That, my dear, you'll have to prove. As of now, we only have your sayso for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
And please refrain from using anecdotes.
Khen, do you think that understanding of ownership needs self awareness? I do, because how can you define ownership if you don't know your 'own', how can something belong to me if you don't know what 'me' is.
So are human rights. Do you think that people in China aren't as human as those in the West?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
No.Quote:
Do you think that people in China aren't as human as those in the West?
Are human rights enforced by the Chineese government? Yes, no? Please answer.
Then answer if this makes them more or less human than Amerikans.
They absolutely are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
It means that we don't derive rights from government, and that believing we do is a pernicious lie.Quote:
Then answer if this makes them more or less human than Amerikans.
No, I don't think I will. I've owned several dogs, and they clearly displayed ownership of certain toys, and areas. They marked their territory, chose their toys, and defended them both. They would also choose who could or couldn't play with them, my dear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
You are not answering my question. And no it doesn't mean that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Fail.Quote:
No, I don't think I will. I've owned several dogs..
Shows to me that you still have not understood the difference between territory and property. And you have nothing to show but anecdotes. Sorry, but that makes your opinion count for nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
The difference between possession and property is also very important in this case. The idea of possession comes much closer to the natural fact of "being in control" over something.
You're all wrong! Property can only exist on classes of certain programming languages. You are not a C# class, so you cannot have a property any more than a dog can!
Hang on, isn't the right to property endorsed by Kant himself?
With caveats. As far as I have understood it, there is the issue of "initial acquisition" - who acquired the property first from whom or where. Every purchase you do is a derived contract - you get the item from someone who himself got the item from someone else and so on. However, there must be a beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Which means there are two possibilities:
a) res nullius - the item belonged to no one and simply was up for grabs.
b) res omnium - the item belonged to everyone and thus every acquisition of said item is dependant on the consent of everyone else, as acquisition without consent would be a violation of the natural principle of freedom.
The latter position is Kant's. The "consent of everyone" is then later represented by the state. Which in turn means that you "own" something only by the sufferance of the state.
Thus I dare say that Kant would not necessarily argue for this couple...
I don't know about this couple, but how does Kant feel about intellectual property, or new things such as an organisation that did not exist prior to its conception?
Also interesting, how would Enoch the Red's dog feel about intellectual property?
Owning property isn't a guaranteed birthright, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
???Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Property rights are granted through written laws. You have no birthright to property in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Huh, so the Fed can take this iPad out of my hands at anytime save for the fact that a law was written?Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Which one?
The constitution, I assume. There is no inherent right to owning stuff.
If you are breaking a written law (for example: storing illegal content, planning a murder, etc...) then yes it can be taken away from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Read the 5th amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Since Being seems to have missed it, I'm assuming what GGT is referring to is the fact that owning property is not a guaranteed right (since property is not something you are born with, but gain during your life), but that if we own property, the government isn't allowed to take it away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
...unless you do something illegal with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Actually, "unless proper legal recourse is followed."Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
See also: "Eminent domain".