On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:32:20 -0500, Publius
nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>>>Actually, it would have zero benefit "for society," because societies,
>>>being statistical constructs rather than moral agents,
>
>> A society is not a statistical construct. That is sheer autism.
>
>"Society" is a term for a number of persons who happen, by accident of
>birth, to occupy a common territory and are thus capable of interacting.
Support for that claim? Of course not. There is no dictionary sense
of the term, "society" that supports your transparent lies.
>Each of them interacts with such of the others, at such times and for
>such purposes, as promise to be beneficial for him.
What a laughable load of garbage. Much social interaction is a matter
of habit, tradition, happenstance, duty, etc.
>None of them has any
>*a priori* bonds, duties, obligations, or any other *a priori*
>relationships to most of the others, other than their spatial
>relationship.
More garbage. We all owe an a priori debt for the heritage that
created us, which we can only repay by our posterity.
>None of them are present as a result of a pre-existing
>"social design,"
Wrong again. They exist because society, through division of labor,
preservation and transmission of knowledge, security of property in
the products of labor, etc., has made it possible for more than a
handful of starving hunter-gatherers to exist. If you think that has
happened without design, you are an idiot.
>none has any pre-ordained "social role," and none of
>them has any pre-existing purpose attaching to the "society as a
>whole."
More garbage. They exist in and by the grace of society, and have a
debt to discharge in consequence.
>Indeed, there are no goals, purposes, interests, or values
>common to them all, though most will be able to find others who share
>*some* of their goals, interests, and values. With the exceptions of
>those identified co-travelers --- kinfolk, friends, some colleagues and
>co-workers --- they take no interest in one another's interests or
>projects.
Again, that is sheer autism with zero (0) foundation in fact. Society
is founded in the mutual aid, defense, division of labor, etc. that
are in the interests of all, and in which all who are not greedy,
sociopathic parasites participate.
>"Society" refers to a "number of persons."
Of course, that is the very sentence you denied having uttered.
>It denotes a number, not a
>person. As such, its literal properties are numerical, obtained by
>numerical operations on the properties of the constituent persons.
That is a laughable refusal to know self-evident facts.
>If
>you wish to inventory the properties found within a society, aside from
>those numerical properties, you have to examine the persons themselves.
Garbage. You cannot find "division of labor" or "mutual aid" or
"transmission and preservation of knowledge" by looking at individual
persons. Your premise is that people are all autistic sociopaths,
just as you are.
>Persons have values, interests, preferences, etc. (which vary widely).
They have one interest that does not vary: reproductive success.
>Societies *per se* do not.
Wrong again. Societies, being capable of surviving or perishing,
evolve just as individuals, and have the same interest in survival and
reproductive success conferred by their evolutionary heritage.
>Any property of personhood imputed to the
>society is either metaphorical, and refers actually to a property of
>some person(s) within the society, or it does not apply at all.
Wrong. Societies, like individuals, have an interest in their own
survival.
>You may, of course, impute personhood properties to societies
>metaphorically: "New York loves the Met." If you mean by that, "many
>people in New York love the Met," then all is well.
That IS a metaphor. "Society enables a division of labor" is a fact.
>> Yes, stupid, of course they do, being capable of surviving,
>> reproducing and perishing in the course of evolution.
>
>Dandelions do all those things. But you are so steeped in your metaphor
>that you don't recognize it as a metaphor. Societies do not "survive" or
>"perish;"
Again, you simply refuse to know self-evident and indisputable facts
of objective reality. Societies indisputably survive and perish.
>those terms apply to living things, and societies are not
>living things, but defined collections of living things.
Languages are not living things either, yet they also survive or
perish. Likewise schools of thought, corporations, etc.
>The living
>things comprising them survive and perish; the collective remains intact
>for a time or it disbands or dissipates.
?? ROTFL!! Thanks for agreeing that I am right.
>> That is the
>> only reason human rights exist at all: people are social animals, and
>> their individual evolutionary success -- the survival and
>> proliferation of their genes -- is intimately dependent on the
>> survival and success of the societies of which they are members.
>
>You have it exactly backwards.
Nope. People are dependent on society and can scarcely exist without
it.
>The persistence of societies depends upon
>the survival and well-being of its members, not the other way around.
The dependence runs both ways. The Black Death in some places killed
the majority of the people, but society went on much as before. In
many other cases, such as the Taiping Rebellion, societal breakdown
has been disastrous for individual members of society.
>Societies endure until their members abandon, disband, or reconstitute
>them.
Tautology.
>Societies exist for the benefit and convenience of their members,
>and continue only so long as the advantages of membership outweigh the
>disadvantages.
Tell it to the North Koreans.
>> We
>> have rights because the societies where people had rights out-competed
>> the societies where they didn't.
>
>You're pretty close on that one. We have rights because societies in
>which most people recognized and respected others' rights persisted,
>while others disappeared (because the predators running rampant reduced
>the population to below survival levels, or because the prey absconded
>to saner surroundings).
Nope. The principal mechanism that established the superiority of
societies with rights and extinguished societies without rights was
almost certainly warfare. Rights allow increased population, larger
armies, greater social cohesion, cooperation and loyalty, more
production of wealth including war materiel, technological progress
and preservation, sharing and transmission of knowledge including
military technology, tactics, etc.
>>>You are ensnared
>>>in the Organic Fallacy (the notion that societies are sentient
>>>creatures, moral agents, to which the properties of personhood may be
>>>imputed). Thus you commit a category mistake.
>
>Interesting:
>
>> I have neither said nor implied that
>> societies are sentient creatures or moral agents.
>
>> Societies can thrive or perish, and that
>> gives them interests and values.
>
>Societies are not sentients or moral agents, yet they can have interests
>and values. An *interest* is an attribute only of sentient creatures,
>Roy.
No, stupid. Corporations have interests, stupid. Plants have
interests (like survival), stupid.
>A *value* is an attribute only of moral agents.
Wrong. Animals are not moral agents, yet they have values (as you
will learn if you try getting between a mother bear and her cubs).
>You need to sort through these tangled metaphors, which are confusing
>you.
I'm not the one who thinks natural resources are produced by human
labor, stupid. You are.
>>>> Therefore, the real reason private property is instituted in all
>>>> _human_ societies, but in _no_ animal societies, is that human
>>>> beings are capable of producing durable wealth that benefits society
>>>> as a whole.
>
>>>People do not produce (or search for and discover) useful goods
>>>in order to "benefit society as a whole." They produce or search for
>>>them in order to benefit themselves, and perhaps to benefit a few
>>> others important to them, just as do all other animals.
>
>> Ignoratio elenchi. We are talking about why people think others have
>> property rights in the goods they produce, not why they produce goods
>> themselves. Try to keep your eye on the ball.
>
>Nor do people respect others' rights because they are interested in
>"benefiting society as a whole."
Yes, they do. They are just not typically aware of it, same as people
craved fresh fruit for millions of years without being aware that they
needed Vitamin C.
>Alfie respects Bruno's rights because:
>
>1. He may be killed if he tries to violate them, and
Children are observed to respect each other's rights long before they
learn about such sanctions.
>2. He improves the chances that Bruno will respect his, Alfie's, rights
>if he respects Bruno's (game theory).
Garbage. He has no reason to suppose any such thing, unless both are
members of a society where respect for rights is the norm.
>"Benefits to society" do not enter the equation. It is the furthest
>thing from both Alfie and Bruno's minds.
Wrong again. There is no game theory calculus behind it, other than
consequentially. The belief that others have rights is clearly a
priori and genetic in origin.
Can you provide details of the game theory calculation that makes a
soldier willing to die for his society?
Thought not.
>> Couldn't matter less. Human behaviors often evolve with little or no
>> consciousness of the evolutionary reasons for them. Is anyone
>> consciously aware of the biological reasons why they like music? No,
>> of course they aren't. Even biologists don't understand it. But
>> people nevertheless keep on downloading from iTunes.
>>
>> Similarly, people think OTHER people have property rights in the
>> products of their labor without any conscious awareness of why they
>> think so. But the reason is that it helps society function and
>> thrive, to the benefit of all. That's the only plausible explanation
>> for A's belief in B's property rights, which clearly does not
>> otherwise serve his reproductive success.
>
>You're describing the invisible hand there,
No, I am not.
>but misinterpreting it in a
>common way --- by supposing there is some global purpose or design
>behind the behaviors of the agents (called the "design fallacy" in
>evolution).
No. There is no design in the sense of a plan (though some people are
obviously making plans for society), but there is a purpose:
evolutionary success. It is the same purpose any product of evolution
can be expected to have, as it is inherent in the nature of the
process.
>People's respect for others' rights arises from and reflects
>purely local concerns.
Evolutionary psychology has already disproved such autistic ravings.
>And they certainly are aware of why they think so
Another bald falsehood. Children often exhibit a keen sense of rights
(and may mistakenly apply it to animals), but obviously have no idea
why they do so.
>--- they anticipate that others will resist any attempt to violate them.
But that anticipation is often wrong, and KNOWN to be wrong, yet the
respect for others' rights endures.
>They respect others' rights because it is the strategy with the highest
>payoff in most situations.
Wrong. There is no such game theory calculation involved. People
have simply evolved to be averse to violating others' rights because
those who weren't did not survive. And the reason the rapacious did
not survive was because their rapacity, even when it was successful
locally, compromised their social support systems.
>The global results are an unintended
>consequence, just as is general prosperity in market economies (that is
>what makes the hand invisible).
True, the beneficial (in the evolutionary sense) societal consequences
of respecting others' rights -- cohesion, cooperation, loyalty,
division of labor, increased population, security and wealth, etc. --
are in most cases not consciously intended by the individuals who
respect others' rights. Respect for rights certainly long antedates
conscious awareness of such factors.
>BTW, people respect others' rights in natural goods just as readily as
>they do their rights to manufactured goods, in all societies in which
>the concept of rights is alive and well.
Not really. Many people, such as you, do not respect others' rights
to life and liberty, and seek to violate them for their own unearned
profit through institutionalized privileges. This indulgence in greed
and evil produces persistent and intolerable conditions of injustice
which the victims then try to rectify by any available means,
certainly including forcible dispossession of the privileged.
>Indeed, the concept arose and
>evolved mainly with respect to natural goods.
Of course, that is another bald falsehood. There was no concept of
private property in natural resources before the agricultural
revolution, whereas property in products of labor long antedates it.
Even Neanderthals buried people with some of their personal property.
>> There is no other plausible explanation for the
>> existence of property rights, and the explanation I've provided also
>> explains why property rights are uniquely human: animal A does not
>> benefit by intervening on B's behalf when C takes something from B.
>> Human being A often does.
>
>I've just given one.
No, of course you haven't. You have provided no explanation whatever
for A's intervention on B's behalf, which is routine in human
societies, but rare among animals except where close kinship
relationships are known.
>Your "social" explanation proposes no causal nexus
>between the global result and the behavior of the agent.
Lie. I explained very clearly why people respect others' rights: the
success of societies where they do so, and the consequent increased
frequency of the genes for such behavior.
>The causal
>arrow points in the opposite direction. The global benefits are an
>(unintended) result of the agent's action, not its cause.
That "explanation" unfortunately invokes an absurd notion of how
people make decisions, and ignores the fact that respect for rights is
clearly an evolved behavior, not the result of ad hoc game theory
calculations.
>> "When the emancipation of the African was spoken of, and when the
>> nation of Britain appeared to be taking into serious consideration
>> the rightfulness of abolishing slavery, what tremendous evils were
>> to follow! Trade was to be ruined, commerce was almost to cease, and
>> manufacturers were to be bankrupt. Worse than all, private property
>> was to be invaded (property in human flesh), the rights of planters
>> sacrificed to the speculative notions of fanatics, and the British
>> government was to commit an act that would forever deprive it of the
>> confidence of British subjects."
>>
>> --Patrick Edward Dove, The Theory of Human Progression, 1850
>>
>> How many times do I have to prove you wrong before you will become
>> willing to consider the possibility that you actually ARE wrong?
>
>Er, what do the objections voiced to abolition have to do with the
>rationale for abolition?
Hehe. Precisely. Recognize this?
"If your "attack" on an entire species of property consists of
advocating collectivizing it, then you certainly are *most likely* a
free-luncher, seeking to gain the benefits of some property presently
belonging to others without paying for it."
What does that have to do with the rationale for recovering the
publicly created economic rent of land for the purposes and benefit of
the public that creates it, rather than funding public goods by
stealing from the productive for the unearned profit of greedy, idle,
parasitic landowners?
>>>Abolitionists did
>>>not seek to abolish private property in slaves so that the liberated
>>>property --- the slaves --- could become state property or the
>>>collective property of "society" (need your lawn mowed? Call the State
>>>Slave Service).
>
>> OK, so now you at least admit that you were flat-out _lying_ when you
>> claimed that 'if you are attacking an entire "species" of property,
>> then you are very likely a free-luncher seeking to expropriate someone
>> else's property for your benefit, without having to pay for it.' You
>> fabricated that vicious, despicable, disgraceful and evil lie as an ad
>> hominem smear, in order to shift attention away from the fact that
>> your "arguments" are uniformly dishonest, fallacious and preposterous.
>
>If your "attack" on an entire species of property consists of advocating
>collectivizing it, then you certainly are *most likely* a free-luncher,
>seeking to gain the benefits of some property presently belonging to
>others without paying for it.
I see. So, if the letters of the alphabet had been made into private
property by government decree, as land has been, so that anyone using
them would have to pay rent to their owners, then anyone who said that
the alphabet should be freely available for all to use would be
"advocating collectivizing it," and "most likely a free luncher,
seeking to gain the benefits of some property presently belonging to
others without paying for it."
Is that about it, greedy, evil, lying garbage?
>You have nothing in common with the slavery abolitionists,
Then why do all apologists for rent seeker privilege and injustice --
especially you -- resort to the exact same fallacious and dishonest
arguments -- especially ad hominems -- that slave owners employed
against the abolitionists?
>who were not seeking to expropriate someone
>else's private property for their own benefit, but to restore certain
>private property --- the bodies and minds and efforts of the slaves ---
>to its rightful owners, namely, to the slaves themselves.
Liar. The abolitionists did _not_ seek to "restore certain private
property to its rightful owners," and would not have recognized such a
ludicrous mischaracterization of their efforts. They sought to
extirpate the evil notion that people could rightly be private
property at all, and to end the systematic, legalized use of physical
coercion to compel labor and appropriate its products without just
compensation _whether_or_not_ that coercion took the form of property
in human beings, which it sometimes did not.
What _we_ seek is to restore certain private "property" -- the equal
human rights to life and liberty -- to their rightful owners, namely
everyone.
>The
>abolitionists' motives were noble; yours (like those of Marxists and IP
>"abolitionists" are merely self-serving, and transparently so.
Oh? But somehow, the motives of landowners who want to continue to
pocket a substantial share of others' production without having to
contribute anything to production in return are _not_ merely
self-serving, and transparently so?
Bwahahahahahahahahaaa!!!!
>> The arguments are not nonsensical in the least. That is just a lie.
>> People incomparably more intelligent than you, such as Richard
>> Stallman, have made such arguments and, like Henry George's arguments,
>> they have never been refuted.
>
>Stallman should stick to writing Unix routines. When he ventures into
>political or economic or philosphical territory, what results is some
>very buggy code.
Translation, you cannot refute any of his arguments, just as you
cannot refute any of mine.
-- Roy L
