Oceans Yet to Burn

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anonymous asked:

I think it's sort of a mistake to try to come up with a "real" definition of private property. It's not a physical truth about the universe we can discover if we only try hard enough; it's an agreement we can make amongst ourselves. I mean, there are better and worse ways of defining it, but the goal should be "useful" (like, for social/legal purposes, such that it's fairly clear to everyone what IS considered theirs) rather than "philosophically airtight".

argumate answered:

Yes. Even if you do come up with a definitive proof of something you still have the problem of some geezer with a shotgun ignoring all of your logic.

[mitigatedchaos]

@remedialaction

I might have missed the post? That happens.

Yeah, sometimes it does.

And Utilitarianism is always ‘doing it wrong.’

You say that, yet you follow a philosophy which, when combined with artificial intelligence, will almost inevitably result in human extinction and the replacement of everything we hold dear with economium - the most economically efficient form of matter, which necessarily is unfeeling, because any resources spent on emotions could instead be spent on competition.  

You turned the social fiction of “property” into an axiom which exceeds the value of humanity - all of humanity - in your system.  

Anarcho-Capitalism and other such property-obsessed systems are always ‘doing it wrong’.

[gunsanddopeparty2020]

Utilitarianism combined with artificial intelligence will almost evidently result in human extinction and the replacement of everything we hold dear with barely-conscious machines that do nothing but perceive an eternal heroin high.

[mitigatedchaos]

There is a reason I said “doing Utilitarianism wrong”. One of these is that hypothetical agents don’t count unless they are sure to exist - in other words, you are not obligated to create hedonium. Hedonium, as disturbing as it might be, would still be a better fate for the universe THAN ECONOMIUM, however.

Important edit!

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anonymous asked:

I think it's sort of a mistake to try to come up with a "real" definition of private property. It's not a physical truth about the universe we can discover if we only try hard enough; it's an agreement we can make amongst ourselves. I mean, there are better and worse ways of defining it, but the goal should be "useful" (like, for social/legal purposes, such that it's fairly clear to everyone what IS considered theirs) rather than "philosophically airtight".

argumate answered:

Yes. Even if you do come up with a definitive proof of something you still have the problem of some geezer with a shotgun ignoring all of your logic.

[remedialaction]

“It’s not a physical truth about the universe.”

I 100% reject any attempt to appeal to something that is “useful” rather than “philosophically airtight.” That way lies utilitarianism, and a great horror that is.

[argumate]

What does philosophically airtight even mean for legalistic frameworks? “Consistent given the axioms”? What happens when someone rejects the axioms?

[remedialaction]

Reject the axiom, eject from helicopter.

But more seriously, the argument there is one must establish the axioms as just that, axiomatic. And if they are, than someone rejecting them is rejecting reality, and you couldn’t reason with them anyway. As a rule, most of the time folks implicitly acknowledge the axioms in when attempting to reject them.

(A Spontaneous Order is a good book on this.)

[argumate]

Axioms aren’t physical reality though, that’s the point, they’re chosen via a social process that requires ongoing negotiation.

Whether grazing your sheep on otherwise untouched land confers ownership vs. planting crops on land vs. regularly setting fire to the land vs. burying ancestors on the land vs. etc. etc. have all been axiomatic to different groups at different times, and these questions can’t be answered by in some abstract sense, they require getting everyone in a room and thrashing it out until agreement is reached.

[remedialaction]

I feel we are maybe meaning different things about axioms. I don’t agree that they’re chosen via social process at all. An axiom is true even if everyone attempts to say it is not, that’s what makes it axiomatic. 

That all of those things HAVE been debate doesn’t mean there is not a conclusive truth, but we’ve moved beyond things. We are now discussing far more than an axiom of ‘property rights exist,’ but rather are now defining what those property rights ARE. The axiomatic truth is that ownership exists, not necessarily the minutia of what that ownership entails.

[mitigatedchaos]

If property rights truly exist in this transcendent sense, then the minutia must necessarily also be objectively constant and derivable from this.  It shouldn’t be up for negotiation (in that sense, not the sense of making a contract).

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anonymous asked:

I think it's sort of a mistake to try to come up with a "real" definition of private property. It's not a physical truth about the universe we can discover if we only try hard enough; it's an agreement we can make amongst ourselves. I mean, there are better and worse ways of defining it, but the goal should be "useful" (like, for social/legal purposes, such that it's fairly clear to everyone what IS considered theirs) rather than "philosophically airtight".

argumate answered:

Yes. Even if you do come up with a definitive proof of something you still have the problem of some geezer with a shotgun ignoring all of your logic.

[remedialaction]

“It’s not a physical truth about the universe.”

I 100% reject any attempt to appeal to something that is “useful” rather than “philosophically airtight.” That way lies utilitarianism, and a great horror that is.

[mitigatedchaos]

Well you know, we were having an argument about just how “philosophically airtight” this idea of property as a property of the universe is, and you stopped responding.

From what I can see, it isn’t philosophically airtight.  Also, if you find Utilitarianism horrifying, you may be doing it wrong.  

[Oceans Yet to Burn]

Anonymous asked:

I think it's sort of a mistake to try to come up with a "real" definition of private property. It's not a physical truth about the universe we can discover if we only try hard enough; it's an agreement we can make amongst ourselves. I mean, there are better and worse ways of defining it, but the goal should be "useful" (like, for social/legal purposes, such that it's fairly clear to everyone what IS considered theirs) rather than "philosophically airtight".

argumate answered:

Yes. Even if you do come up with a definitive proof of something you still have the problem of some geezer with a shotgun ignoring all of your logic.

[mitigatedchaos]

Yeah, but if you acknowledge this then you can’t build a whole moral system starting with “self ownership” (even though that in itself doesn’t entirely make sense).