The Left Destroys EVERYTHING It Touches

[henry quirk]

So the property he sells to somebody else becomes the property of that other person?

Where does this becom conditional on you approving of the owner?

So, you approve of slavers...them folks just have different cultural imperatives...ain't nuthin' wrong with slavery.

Okeedoke.

The free man can have no truck with the slaver

The property a man sells was his property for him to sell, yes or no?
This shit is supposed to be sacred to you Henry.

If a free man has truck with slavers, he acts immorally.

I know you don't get it. Bein' a moral anti-realist -- or subjectivist or relativist or whatever the hell it is you call yourself -- how could you?

[FlashDangerpants]

So, you approve of slavers...them folks just have different cultural imperatives...ain't nuthin' wrong with slavery.

Okeedoke.

The free man can have no truck with the slaver

The property a man sells was his property for him to sell, yes or no?
This shit is supposed to be sacred to you Henry.

If a free man has truck with slavers, he acts immorally.

I know you don't get it. Bein' a moral anti-realist -- or subjectivist or relativist or whatever the hell it is you call yourself -- how could you?

I'm just amazed at the flexibility of your supposedly inflexible facts. Now there's people you cannot choose to transact with, vaguely referred to as "slavers". But you are the "slaver" when you tell other people who they can do business with aren't you?

[henry quirk]

But you are the "slaver" when you tell other people who they can do business with aren't you?

Where did I say I, or anyone, ought tell folks who they can do business with?

What I said was free men can't have truck with slavers, and if they do, they've acted immorally.

What that means is: I won't have truck with them. I didn't advocate they be disallowed from tradin' with slavers. I just said they ought not to, if they're free men.

Try again.

[FlashDangerpants]

But you are the "slaver" when you tell other people who they can do business with aren't you?

Where did I say I, or anyone, ought tell folks who they can do business with?

What I said was free men can't have truck with slavers, and if they do, they've acted immorally.

What that means is: I won't have truck with them. I didn't advocate they be disallowed from tradin' with slavers. I just said they ought not to, if they're free men.

Try again.

That conflicts with this...

Gonna be a sad day, for them, when Americans give 'em theand refuse to pay tribute or recognize Chinese deeds of ownership.

That's cancelling some other free man's transaction that he enterred into freely.

You are going to type your reply on a made in China iPad, right?

[henry quirk]

That's cancelling some other free man's transaction that he enterred into freely.

Nope. The free man (who, doin' business with slavers, has dirtied himself) is no longer even in the mix. Other free men choosin' to defy slavers by not recognizin' debt they never agreed to, by not recognizing morally illegitimate ownership by the slaver, are contendin' with the slaver. With luck and foresight, they've already dealt with the slaver-lover by starvin' him out.


You are going to type your reply on a made in China iPad, right?

Nope...gave that piece of shit up a long while back.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's cancelling some other free man's transaction that he enterred into freely.

Nope. The free man (who, doin' business with slavers, has dirtied himself) is no longer even in the mix. Other free men choosin' to defy slavers by not recognizin' debt they never agreed to, by not recognizing morally illegitimate ownership by the slaver, are contendin' with the slaver. With luck and foresight, they've already dealt with the slaver-lover by starvin' him out.


You are going to type your reply on a made in China iPad, right?

Nope...gave that piece of shit up a long while back.

So this whole self-ownership thing that was central to your wholemoral-fact thing used to seem to work because of that ownership. But ownership is now a thing that depends on some other stuff. So self-ownership can't be central to your schema any more. Something else has to intervene to make that ownership legitimate for some reason.

[henry quirk]

That's cancelling some other free man's transaction that he enterred into freely.

Nope. The free man (who, doin' business with slavers, has dirtied himself) is no longer even in the mix. Other free men choosin' to defy slavers by not recognizin' debt they never agreed to, by not recognizing morally illegitimate ownership by the slaver, are contendin' with the slaver. With luck and foresight, they've already dealt with the slaver-lover by starvin' him out.


You are going to type your reply on a made in China iPad, right?

Nope...gave that piece of shit up a long while back.

So this whole self-ownership thing that was central to your wholemoral-fact thing used to seem to work because of that ownership. But ownership is now a thing that depends on some other stuff. So self-ownership can't be central to your schema any more. Something else has to intervene to make that ownership legitimate for some reason.

You don't get it. You can't. Becuz of the view you've committed to there can be no moral facts, so there's nuthin' to unpack. When I say a man's life, liberty, and property are his, you can't see what's there beyond some legalistic interpretation (it's his property, Henry, you said so yourself...can't he do with his property as he likes, includin' sellin' it to slavers?).

For you, morality is opinion or cultural consensus. Wrong is wrong only as opinion or cultural consensus. You literally cannot see how a free man doin' business with a slaver is doin' wrong.

I'm at a loss where to go with this conversation.

[henry quirk]

Let's try this...

The barkeep can sell to the person he knows is an alcoholic: should he?

The mother can hire the person she knows is a pedophille as babysitter: should she?

[FlashDangerpants]

That's cancelling some other free man's transaction that he enterred into freely.

Nope. The free man (who, doin' business with slavers, has dirtied himself) is no longer even in the mix. Other free men choosin' to defy slavers by not recognizin' debt they never agreed to, by not recognizing morally illegitimate ownership by the slaver, are contendin' with the slaver. With luck and foresight, they've already dealt with the slaver-lover by starvin' him out.


You are going to type your reply on a made in China iPad, right?

Nope...gave that piece of shit up a long while back.

So this whole self-ownership thing that was central to your wholemoral-fact thing used to seem to work because of that ownership. But ownership is now a thing that depends on some other stuff. So self-ownership can't be central to your schema any more. Something else has to intervene to make that ownership legitimate for some reason.

You don't get it. You can't.

I understand facts, what I'm not used to this special category of fact that requires some leap of faith. There's usually other words for that sort of thing.

Becuz of the view you've committed to there can be no moral facts, so there's nuthin' to unpack. When I say a man's life, liberty, and property are his, you can't see what's there beyond some legalistic interpretation (it's his property, Henry, you said so yourself...can't he do with his property as he likes, includin' sellin' it to slavers?).

So what makes it right that he should own this thing? You've already committed to the position that somebody must be worthy in order to own things with your explanation of why you would withold ownership from the Chinese. So there is obviously some principle of rightfulness that you are just assuming.

Legitimising the forfeiture of property held by those judged morally unworthy seems like something you would normally want to avoid. It's more in the commie's wheelhouse than the libertarian's.

[henry quirk]

So what makes it right that he should own this thing? You've already committed to the position that somebody must be worthy in order to own things with your explanation of why you would withold ownership from the Chinese. So there is obviously some principle of rightfulness that you are just assuming.

if joe buys a car with his legit earnings: it's moral

if joe buys a car with money he stole: it's immoral

every transaction with the chinese gov is immoral becuz the chinese gov has no legit claim on what it transacts with

same can be said for The United States (sumthin' apart from America or Americans)

both iterations of The State (one an overt slaver, the other workin' real hard to be a slaver) are immoral constructs peopled by, supported by, immoral folks and dupes (who if they understood what they supported would rightfully hang their heads in shame)

free men ought not do business with either

[FlashDangerpants]

So what makes it right that he should own this thing? You've already committed to the position that somebody must be worthy in order to own things with your explanation of why you would withold ownership from the Chinese. So there is obviously some principle of rightfulness that you are just assuming.

if joe buys a car with his legit earnings: it's moral

if joe buys a car with money he stole: it's immoral

every transaction with the chinese gov is immoral becuz the chinese gov has no legit claim on what it transacts with

same can be said for The United States (sumthin' apart from America or Americans)

both iterations of The State (one an overt slaver, the other workin' real hard to be a slaver) are immoral constructs peopled by, supported by, immoral folks and dupes (who if they understood what they supported would rightfully hang their heads in shame)

free men ought not do business with either

So ownership continues be dependent on deserving to own. You've still committed to this principle rightfulness that is necessary to justify an ownership relationship between the owner and the property. But you've done nothing to explain it.

The justification for what is good and bad depends on property. But property depends on goodness. It's a circle.

[henry quirk]

It's a circle.

Nope.

Joe works, as a proxy for another, or for himself. He trades his time and service (as employee) or his product or service (as self-employer) for mutually agreed upon compensation. With these earnings, he meets the price set by (or negotiated with)the car owner. There's no theft: at no point has Joe deprived another of property.

Stan successfully holds up a number of big cash carriers. Robs a few high-end homes. His haul is measured in tens of thousands. He takes his stolen money to the car dealer and meets the dealer's price. The transaction is illegit. Stan first took property not his, then he used that stolen wealth in a way not approved of by the true owners of that wealth. He's a thief.

Not seein' the circle. Am seein' two paths, one moral, the other immoral.


deserving to own

Odd way to put it. Not my thought at all. Joe doesn't deserve to own the car. He transacted fairly for it. There was no coercion. Once his, he has a right to it.


you've done nothing to explain it

Well, I think I have, but, if you like, we can unpack the first posts in these...

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=32456&sid=6d7fad8e ... 25bb46da91

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29158&p=452267&hili ... at#p452267

...threads to get started on a review of my position.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's a circle.

Nope.

Joe works, as a proxy for another, or for himself. He trades his time and service (as employee) or his product or service (as self-employer) for mutually agreed upon compensation. With these earnings, he meets the price set by (or negotiated with)the car owner. There's no theft: at no point has Joe deprived another of property.

Stan successfully holds up a number of big cash carriers. Robs a few high-end homes. His haul is measured in tens of thousands. He takes his stolen money to the car dealer and meets the dealer's price. The transaction is illegit. Stan first took property not his, then he used that stolen wealth in a way not approved of by the true owners of that wealth. He's a thief.

Not seein' the circle. Am seein' two paths, one moral, the other immoral.

Then Joe's landlord sells the property to some company. Joe doesn't like the company whose illigetimate property he now inhabits, so he burns the house down when he leaves. This is fine if the company belongs via some chain of shell companies to the Chinese government, but otherwise is a crime and Joe should be viciously beaten by burly thugs? Or should Jow have stayed and just withheld his rent in protest?

[henry quirk]

Joe doesn't like the company whose illigetimate property he now inhabits, so he burns the house down when he leaves.

Burning up a property just cuz you don't like the owner is immoral.

[FlashDangerpants]

Joe doesn't like the company whose illigetimate property he now inhabits, so he burns the house down when he leaves.

Burning up a property just cuz you don't like the owner is immoral.

Why? If the people who bought and paid for it cannot own it because they are "slavers", and "slavers" is kinda most people in your jargon, then nobody's property is harmed.