> royls@telus.net wrote in news:488f347b.2387508@news.telus.net:
>

>>>> Nope. That is just another lie. There has never been, and can
>>>> never be, any such thing as ownership in the absence of a society to
>>>> recognize and secure it [. . .]

>

>>> Ah, my. Still addled by the beguiling myth of the Organic Fallacy.
>>> "Societies," not being persons but merely arbitrarily defined
>>> collections of them (e.g., all the persons occupying Australia, all
>>> persons inhabiting Europe, etc.) do not "recognize" anything (nor do
>>> they tie their shoes, contemplate their navels, or love their
>>> mothers).

>

>> Now who's making the category errors?

>

>>>If any "recognizing" is
>>>being done, it is being done by some of the persons making up that
>>>society. You need to stop anthropomorphizing (and then idolizing)

>>
>> You need to stop lying about what I have plainly written, lying
>> garbage.

>
> You didn't write the first snip above? Perhaps I responded to the wrong
> post . . .
>

>> So, according to your autistic view, law does not exist, tradition
>> does not exist, culture does not exist; only individuals exist.

>
> Why would you conclude that? Of course traditions, culture, etc., exist.
> Those terms denote various preferences and practices of individuals,
> especially those preferentally found among individuals inhabiting a
> certain locale. I realize, of course, you are in the habit of thinking
> those are properties of your uberperson, society, rather than properties
> of individuals. But of course they are not. If a certain practice is a
> tradition within a society, it is only because some actual individuals
> within that society practice it.
>

>>>If Alfie and Bruno are the two inhabitants, then clearly, a claim that
>>>"society recognizes Alfie's rights" can only mean that Bruno
>>>recognizes them. But what if there are 1000 other people on the
>>>island? What would "society recognizes Alfie's rights" mean, if not
>>>that most of those people, or at least a large fraction of them, are
>>>able to recognize Alfie's property as not being their own, and
>>>therefore refrain from stealing it?

>

>> It means they recognize it as Alfie's, and also will not let Bruno or
>> any of the other 1000 steal it. That's what distinguishes human
>> ownership of property from mere forcible animal possession.

>
> Well, if that is the case, property must not exist, at least in any
> large society (it might in some very small societies whose members have
> subscribed to some kind of mutual aid pact). In large, randomly-
> populated societies (such as a society one is born into), virtually no
> one will know whether something has been stolen from Alfie, and those
> who do know, except for some of Alfie's friends and kinfolk, will not
> consider it to be their problem. Many of them, if they learn who stole
> Alfie's cow, will inform Alfie, because, by hypothesis, they respect one
> another's property, and do not abide stealing. But they will not be
> volunteering their time to stand guard over Alfie's barn, or feel
> obligated to compensate him for his loss, or take upon themselves the
> task of investigating the theft and pursuing the thief. Some of them
> might do the latter if this thief is running amok, since they might
> expect to become his next victim. But in that case they're acting to
> remove a threat to themselves, not from any sense of duty, or feeling of
> brotherhood, with Alfie.
>
> In most larger cities police investigations of burglaries are
> perfunctory, and very little property is ever recovered. Everyone
> realizes this. How many cases do you know of where a neighbor, co-
> worker, etc., has reported that his lawmower had been stolen overnight,
> and his neighbors and co-workers (much less others in the city who have
> no relationships with the victim), knowing the police will devote little
> effort to the case, have offered to help him investigate the theft and
> apprehend the thief?
>
> That property rights are generally recognized in a community means only
> that most people have some agree-upon means of determining what belongs
> to whom, and refrain from taking that which does not belong to them.
> Many of them will also report thievery if they learn of it, because they
> don't want thieves running loose. A few will actively pursue thieves, if
> the thief becomes brazen enough that others feel threatened.
>
> If you imagine "recognizing property rights" implies any more than this,
> you are living in some Utopia of your imagination, not the real world.
>

>> You, of course, are unable to distinguish genuine human property
>> rights from forcible appropriation by animals, because you consider
>> forcible appropriation to be the basis of property rights.

>
> Forcible? Where did I state or imply that one may acquire property by
> "forcible appropriation"? Force against whom?
>

>> The
>> obvious implication of your "first possession" doctrine is that human
>> beings should recognize the property rights of animals in the
>> territories they have appropriated by force (as that is how you
>> believe property rights are obtained), and not try to dispossess them.

>
> Were animals moral agents then we would have to take seriously their
> claims to any property in their possession. But since they are not, and
> do not make such claims, we don't.
>

>>>A few
>>>--- his friends and relatives --- might help him get it back. As far
>>>as Alfie is concerned, "society" (most of that 1001 persons) is as
>>>useless as boots to a snake, at least for this purpose.

>

>> Possibly you do not live in a society, and consequently have no
>> concept of what it is like. That's probably because you are a
>> sociopath, as your sociopathic concept of the basis of human rights
>> demonstrates.

>
> Perhaps your daily newspaper carries a "police reports" column. Perhaps
> you can drive by the addresses of some of the burglary victims listed,
> and see how many members of your society are lined up at the door
> offering their help. Perhaps you can even appoint yourself that person's
> guardian angel, and try to recruit some of your own friends and
> neighbors to help you investigate that burglary (to which you know the
> police will devote little time). Let me know how you fare.

>

>>>You gotta scrap that mythological history of yours and acquaint
>>>yourself with real history.

>

>> Ah, no, actually. You gotta scrap your sociopathic fantasies about
>> where rights come from.

>
> Well, if it is fantasy, then it is a fantasy shared by all the world's
> legal systems, and by nearly everyone who needs to make everyday
> decisions about what belongs to whom. I hope you followed some of those
> links I gave you earlier.
>

>>>Where some sort of government exists --- if only a self-
>>>appointed warlord with an ample number of loyal troops --- there will
>>>usually be some sort of mechanism for adjudicating private disputes
>>>and punishing wrongdoers.

>>
>> What would make their doings "wrong," hmmmm?

>
> "Wrongs" punishable by a warlord's troops will be all acts contrary to
> the decrees of the warlord.
>

>>>Those mechanisms, however, are not created to protect
>>>anyone's rights. They are provided only to keep the peace and minimize
>>>threats to the regime (such as Rome's Praetorian Guard).

>>
>> That is exactly where rights come from. People have evolved a sense
>> of rights and justice (these are observed at a very early age, and
>> cannot plausibly be ascribed to social learning) because societies
>> where people have had rights have outcompeted societies where they
>> didn't.

>
> Huh? You seem to be confusing social evolution with biological
> evolution. Useful practices, skills, knowledge, is transmitted
> culturally, not biologically. They are transmitted and disseminated by
> teaching and example, not via the genes. That is "social learning." If a
> practice, rule, or belief becomes widespread thoughout a society (which
> is, keep in mind, a number of persons able to interact), it does so via
> a process called "adaptive consensus." The meanings of terms and the
> rules of grammar govering one's native language are learned via this
> process, as are the "standard" methods of farming, building, weaving,
> etc. prevailing in a community.
>
> Are you some kind of Lamarckian?
>

>> It is notable that more intelligent people typically have a more
>> highly developed appreciation of rights and justice than less
>> intelligent people even as children, indicating that "theories" of
>> rights based on the primitive animal model of forcible appropriation
>> and possession indicate a pre-human or animal level of cognition and
>> moral development -- even when accompanied by an apparent facility
>> with language that is more typical of modern humans (homo sapiens).

>
> LOL. I'll pass on that bit of armchair psychobabble.
>

>>>In ancient Athens
>>>the state established courts for hearing such disputes, but
>>>investigating offenses, identifying and locating offenders, locating
>>>any stolen property, and often apprehending the offender fell to the
>>>complaining party. Only the determination of guilt or innocence, and
>>>imposition of punishment, was left to the State (and in other places,
>>>not even the latter).
>>>
>>>See *Policing Athens: Social Control in the Attic Lawsuits, 420-320
>>>B.C*, Virginia J. Hunter, esp. Ch's 4 & 5. Brief excerpt here:
>>>
>>>http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103017930

>>
>> Of course, that source does not say what you claimed it says. That is
>> normal, routine, and expected.
>>
>> Here is the reality, as described in Freeman (1963), pp. 105, 128 and
>> 177):
>>
>> "Since there were no regular police in Athens, such street fights were
>> not uncommon, and it lay with the spectators to decide who was in the
>> right and restore order."
>>
>> Got that, stupid, lying garbage? The SPECTATORS decided who was in
>> the right and restored order. Not the participants.
>>
>> "... It is clearly recognised as a duty of bystanders to help any
>> victim of violence;"
>>
>> Got that, sutpid, lying garbage? There was a clearly recognized DUTY
>> OF BYSTANDERS to help any victim of violence. The victims of violent
>> crime, contrary to your stupid, outright lies, were NOT on their own.
>> SOCIETY secured their rights.

>
> Forgot what I said above, and didn't read the book either, eh?
>
> Of course bystanders will often intervene in a crime being committed
> before their eyes (those few who are not too afraid, in too much of a
> hurry, or who "just don't want to get involved"). Their peace is being
> disturbed, and their sense of justice is being offended. But that is not
> what I denied. By far the majority of crimes are not committed before
> the eyes of bystanders. They are committed in seclusion, by stealth, for
> obvious reasons. Those crimes were *not* prevented by bystanders, or
> investigated by any third-parties. Most crime victims, in most places,
> could not expect any "social help" for either preventing or
> investigating the crime or pursuing the criminal (if known), apart from
> the help of friends and kinfolk.
>
> Try to keep in mind what is the issue here: whether a conception of
> rights and property depends upon public enforcement of any rights so
> recognized. Public enforcement of private rights, until recently in
> history, was all but nonexistent. Moreover, before you can enforce a
> right you *already* have to be able to recognize it. I.e., the existence
> of rights cannot depend upon their enforcement, especially upon
> enforcement by third-parties.
>

>>>"The middle ages either had no system of law enforcement or one of two
>>>systems, depending upon what part of the world you were in. Where law
>>>enforcement existed, it was most likely a variety of the watch system
>>>-- a system premised on the importance of voluntarily patrolling the
>>>streets and guarding cities from sunset to sunrise ("2 A.M. and all's
>>>well"). The predominant function of policing became class control
>>>(keeping watch on vagrants, vagabonds, immigrants, gypsies, tramps,
>>>thieves, and outsiders in general). Despite some innovations during
>>>this time period (the Magna Carta of 1215 being a notable example),
>>>most of this era was characterized by lawlessness and corruption. By
>>>the 1500s, there was no country in the world with more robbers,
>>>thieves, and prostitutes than England. Other countries, too,
>>>experienced lawlessness to such a degree that citizen groups, known as
>>>vigilantes, sprang up to combat crime."
>>>
>>>http://www.realpolice.net/police-history.shtml

>>
>> Yep. "Citizen groups." I.e., society.
>>
>> The enforcement was just undertaken by society -- "citizen groups" --
>> rather than government.

>
> Didn't read it too carefully, did you? Vigilante groups will indeed form
> when crime becomes so rampant that many people feel threatened. They are
> formed to reduce threats to themselves, not to vindicate Alfie's rights
> per some "innate" social impulse. As long as the co-inhabitants of his
> territory do not feel threatened themselves, Alfie is on his own (but
> most of them will themselves respect his rights).
>