On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:27:34 -0500, Publius
nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> 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 . . .
No, you just lied about it.
>> 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?
Maybe because that's what you said?
>Of course traditions, culture, etc., exist.
As qualities of individuals....?
ROTFL!!
>Those terms denote various preferences and practices of individuals,
No, that's just a lie. They denote aspects of societies.
Archaeologists learn about societies' traditions and cultures without
knowing anything at all about, or even identifying, any individual
member of such societies.
>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,
?? A what? You claim there is no such thing as society.
>it is only because some actual individuals
>within that society practice it.
Thanks for confirming that you think only individuals exist, and not
traditions, laws, culture, society, etc.
>>>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).
No, that's just another bald lie.
>In large, randomly-
>populated societies (such as a society one is born into),
Societies are almost never randomly populated. There is typically a
high degree of genetic kinship among the population.
>virtually no
>one will know whether something has been stolen from Alfie,
Those who know Alfie and the thief have a good chance of knowing, and
they are the ones who count. If Alfie reports the theft, the
authorities will also know.
>and those
>who do know, except for some of Alfie's friends and kinfolk, will not
>consider it to be their problem.
Obviously, that's just another bald lie. Either that or you are a
sociopath, so you imagine that others are, too.
>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.
Wrong again. They will inform not only Alfie but the authorities,
because that is how the problem is handled in civilized societies.
And your hypothesis about why they will do so is false. It's not
merely that they respect one another's property, but that they
understand the threat posed to all of them by those who do not respect
others' property.
Everything you say is wrong.
>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.
Do you know what a "posse" is, stupid, lying garbage? Do you
suppose people vote for politicians who make them pay taxes because
they have no interest in taking upon themselves any of the cost of
property right protection?
Give your head a shake.
>Some of them
>might do the latter if this thief is running amok, since they might
>expect to become his next victim.
OK, so unlike primitive illiterates, you are unable to conceive of the
relationship between the security of others' property rights and the
general prosperity of society that benefits all its members. Thought
not.
>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.
OK, so you are unable to understand anything beyond the concrete range
of the moment. Thought not.
Unlike you, primitive illiterates are able to understand that the
threat to themselves is not primarily as potential direct victims, but
as members of a society that will be generally impoverished if such
behavior is not punished, deterred, and prevented.
>In most larger cities police investigations of burglaries are
>perfunctory, and very little property is ever recovered.
Right. But that's because criminals have discerned the economics of
the situation, and learned how to optimize their risk:return ratio.
Burglary lends itself to the required secrecy (which is needed to
avoid instant societal sanctions) and small items such as jewelry,
money, etc. that are typically stolen in burglaries are easy to take,
easy to liquidate, and hard to trace. How can one tell who the
rightful owner is? But police are MUCH more attentive to car theft,
because ownership of cars is REGISTERED. Theft of real estate,
stocks, bonds, etc.? Virtually unknown.
>Everyone realizes this.
Everyone except you realizes it's because of the specific practical
difficulties involved in apprehending burglars, not a general lack of
interest in securing others' property rights.
>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?
Why on earth would you imagine that could be relevant? People's time
is worth money, and they know the expected payoff (i.e., the virtual
certainty of no payoff, and the tiny size of the only potential
payoff) cannot remotely justify such efforts. We have police to do
that because unlike you, people of normal or above-normal intelligence
are able to understand the benefits of specialization and division of
labor. You are simply too stupid to be able to understand such
concepts, so you imagine that unless people waste their time on
fruitless, futile and quixotic investigations of petty crimes, they
can't possibly have any interest in the security of others' property
rights.
It's just utter stupidity.
>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.
No, that is just another lie. They also willingly pay taxes to secure
others' property rights, and provide such cooperation as they are
asked for in investigations of property crimes.
>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.
But in all this, you cannot perceive that people think stealing is
_wrong_. Not just something that they themselves will not do, and do
not want done to them, but something they are interested in stopping
_anyone_ from doing to _anyone_ else.
>If you imagine "recognizing property rights" implies any more than this,
>you are living in some Utopia of your imagination, not the real world.
Wrong again. See above for the proof that it is you who are living in
an imaginary, sociopathic dystopia populated exclusively by soulless,
amoral greed robots indistinguishable from yourself.
>> 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"?
When you claimed that what nature provides to all could ever rightly
be made the private property of a few by dint of "first possession."
>Force against whom?
Against all who would otherwise have been at liberty to use it, of
course:
A Stone Age tribe of hunter-gatherers all use the same land to obtain
their food by their own labor. Then one day Publiugh -- the laziest,
greediest, and least troubled by conscience of the lot (and well,
let's face it, also the stupidest, lyingest and ugliest) -- descries a
means to obtain his food without expending any labor: landowning.
Publiugh knows he can't get away with forcibly appropriating the land
the tribe is currently using (the modern legalistic rationalizations
for private appropriation of public resources not yet having been
devised by liars for hire like Dean Lueck), so he goes to the limits
of the tribe's range and takes "first possession" of all the
surrounding land. He bends a tree branch here, pees on a boulder
there, blazes a trunk yonder, prepares all the appropriate legal
documents, and before you know it, voila! he's a landowner -- the
first in prehistory!
The tribe prospers, waxes more numerous, and before long must seek
food outside its traditional range. Just the chance Publiugh has been
waiting for...
When the first group of foragers arrives at the edge of their usual
range, Publiugh is waiting. "Welcome!" quoth he, "Welcome to my land!
As you can see, there are lots of opportunities for you to obtain food
here: herds of antelope; fruit and nut trees; the succulent roots of
the juju fern; juicy lulu berries, and more. You are welcome to all
you can gather, and need only give me... um... half."
The foragers look at each other, bemused. "Why would we do that?"
they ask.
"Because behold! I am the owner of this land by indisputable right of
first possession!" cries Publiugh, flourishes his signed and
notarized (by himself, of course -- who else?) title deed before their
eyes, and points to a well-aged urine stain on a nearby boulder.
The foragers are baffled by this outlandish performance, and
recognizing Publiugh's condition as one of mental derangement, take
their leave of him, passing on to the next promising bit of
almost-virgin territory (we won't go into what Publiugh did to "take
first possession" of that particular area...).
But Publiugh is there first, flourishes his title deed, and again
informs them of the conditions under which he will permit them to use
"his" land. Polite inquiries establish that Publiugh imagines all the
land around the tribe's traditional range to be his personal property
-- and he has the title deed to prove it.
The foragers naturally laugh at this idiotic notion, and proceed to
exercise their liberty to use what nature provided. Publiugh attempts
to prevent them -- by force, of course, as there is no other way to do
so -- focusing his attention on the weakest of the young girls and
elderly women. But at a hard look from one of the young men, he
abandons this initial attempt to assert his property in the land
through forcible appropriation... oops, I mean, "first possession."
After a successful day of hunting and gathering, the foragers go to
return to their homes, when Publiugh makes his second attempt to
assert his property right in the land. He tries to take -- by force,
as there is no other way -- half of what the young girls and elderly
women have produced by their labor during the day, calling it, "rent."
But they retain a firm grip on their rightful property, and remind him
that as he had no part in the production of this bounty, he thus has
no right to partake of it at all, let alone to abscond with half.
Publiugh begins to chant his magical incantation, "First possession!"
but the foragers are unimpressed. When he forcibly -- i.e.,
initiating forcible, aggressive, coercive violence -- lays hands on
the feeblest of the elderly women to extract from her basket the rent
he feels is his due, the earlier hard look of the young man is
replaced by a hard forefinger in Publiugh's chest, and a stern
reminder that elderly women have the same property rights in the
fruits of their labor as anyone else, and that no member of the tribal
society may initiate the use of force against another.
That's 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.
How do you know animals are not moral agents? They obtain their
"property rights" the same way you imagine humans do: taking by force.
>But since they are not, and
>do not make such claims, we don't.
You are of course wrong. Animals definitely claim what is in their
possession. Just not in a language you understand.
>>>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.
Why be so stupid? They willingly pay their taxes so that police
officers, specialists in the field, can be hired to do that.
And in fact, of course, public assistance to the police is so
commonplace that it is now done on the Net, conveniently and often
very effectively.
>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.
?? ROTFL!!!
Google "Guardian Angels" and start reading, fool. Their true story
refutes everything you have claimed in this thread.
>>>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,
No, that is a bald lie which you have never even attempted to support.
>and by nearly everyone who needs to make everyday
>decisions about what belongs to whom.
Lie. If there were any substance to your claim that property
is founded in first possession, you would be able to point to some
land, anywhere in the world, just one square inch of it, whose current
owner can trace the title through an unbroken chain of consensual
transactions to the first person who possessed it.
And you can't.
Not one single square inch.
>I hope you followed some of those links I gave you earlier.
Oh, I did, sunshine. They have all fallen into one of two categories:
those that did not say what you claimed they said, and sociopathic
fantasies like yours with no basis in fact.
>>>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.
No, they won't, stupid garbage. Warlords often don't bother with any
such decrees at all. They know everyone is aware of people's rights,
and leave it up to underlings to administer a rough justice. Of
course, their view of others' rights becomes somewhat elastic when
those rights conflict with the warlord's interests...
Which is why we now have a better system for securing people's rights.
>>>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.
Rights are not just a useful practice, skill or knowledge. They are a
behavioral predisposition.
>They are transmitted and disseminated by
>teaching and example, not via the genes. That is "social learning."
There is a biological predisposition, just as for language learning.
But as respect for rights is not nearly as certain in its effects on
the individual's or society's reproductive success as language, there
are more people like you, sociopaths who lack the genetic potential
for moral reasoning, than there are people who lack the capacity to
learn language.
>If a
>practice, rule, or belief becomes widespread thoughout a society (which
>is, keep in mind, a number of persons able to interact),
False definition fallacy.
>it does so via a process called "adaptive consensus."
It can. But a behavioral predisposition is not a practice, rule, or
belief.
>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.
And the details of implementation of rights likewise. But the genetic
potential to recognize the rights of others has to be there, as proved
by the fairly numerous persons like yourself who lack it.
>Are you some kind of Lamarckian?
>>>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?
I read enough to know that you are flat, outright wrong, and
baldly lied about what YOUR OWN SOURCE said. You can backpedal all
you like, but you have been exposed as a liar and a fraud.
>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").
Wrong. See the above quote from someone who, unlike you, actually
knows something about administration of justice in ancient Athens.
Bystanders HAD A DUTY to intervene to aid victims of violence. It
would be hard to imagine a more categorical and conclusive refutation
of your stupid, evil lies.
>Their peace is being
>disturbed, and their sense of justice is being offended.
?? Their what? You claim there is no such thing.
>But that is not what I denied.
Yes, it is, as you are required to deny all facts that prove your
beliefs are false and evil.
>By far the majority of crimes are not committed before
>the eyes of bystanders. They are committed in seclusion, by stealth, for
>obvious reasons.
?? ROTFL!!!
Yeah, the reasons are indeed obvious... to everyone but you.
Top of the list is that if there are any witnesses, WHETHER THEY ARE
THE VICTIM'S FRIENDS OR FAMILY OR JUST BYSTANDERS, the crook is quite
likely to be caught and punished, because uninvolved bystanders will
almost all take a hand in matters to secure others' rights. No matter
how much you deny it.
>Those crimes were *not* prevented by bystanders, or
>investigated by any third-parties.
There were no bystanders to secret crimes, and the concept of
investigation was so primitive it was not even applied to scientific
questions, let alone the proceedings of criminal justice.
So much for all your "arguments."
>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.
Wrong, as already proved.
>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.
Nope. Wrong again. societal recognition of rights does not always
result in their public enforcement. In many cases governments go
wrong and start violating people's rights rather than securing them.
But people still recognize each others' rights even in the absence of
public enforcement.
>Public enforcement of private rights, until recently in
>history, was all but nonexistent.
But public _recognition_ of rights has been all but universal.
>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.
True. But rights do exist by virtue of societal recognition, just as
language does.
>>>"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?
Yes, I did, which is how I learned that it proves you wrong.
>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).
Wrong again. In every society, unrelated bystanders will intervene to
prevent an injustice to a member of their society, including one
committed by another member of that society.
-- Roy L
