Gun Control

[henry quirk]

You are missing the point.

Oh no, your point in quite obvious.

You say...

If nobody owned land, the farmer could still create something. He could still dig and plant and water and reap. The only difference would be that other people could harvest and eat the crops. The farmer's ownership of the land in no way affects his ability to dig and plant and reap. Instead, the only thing it does is allow him to control other people vis a vis his property.

...meaning: the farmer is not the owner of his efforts or investments. He works, others eat. You make the farmer a slave.

the only thing his property rights do (specifically, rather than tangentially) is allow him to control other people.

No. His right to his property -- his moral claim -- permits him to safeguard that property, to preserve it from predation by other people.

Ownership of a gun has no impact on the gun (how could it?).

My shotgun is mine. Not as a matter of legalities but as an exclusive moral claim. The impact is there.

it allows the owner to control other people's use of the gun.

Well, yes, of course. It's my gun (or car, or novel, or...).

Marx was correct in stating that property rights MEAN nothing other than the right (legal or natural) of one person to control other people.

Marx was good for stirrin' up envy and nuthin' else. His thinking (and all variations of his thinking) are anti-person, anti-liberty, anti-free will, anti-life. Having read him, you'd do well to cleanse your palate and move and away from him. He deserves no free commercials.

There is no "natural right"to prevent other people from singing a song that is under copyright.

The natural right applies when Joe takes Stan's song and passes it off as his own, drawing profit on it, profit (financial and reputational) that belongs to Stan. Joe, singing Stan's song, attributing the song properly, perhaps drawing a profit on his performance of Stan's song, violates no one.

[Alexiev]

You are missing the point.

Oh no, your point in quite obvious.

You say...

If nobody owned land, the farmer could still create something. He could still dig and plant and water and reap. The only difference would be that other people could harvest and eat the crops. The farmer's ownership of the land in no way affects his ability to dig and plant and reap. Instead, the only thing it does is allow him to control other people vis a vis his property.

...meaning: the farmer is not the owner of his efforts or investments. He works, others eat. You make the farmer a slave.

the only thing his property rights do (specifically, rather than tangentially) is allow him to control other people.

No. His right to his property -- his moral claim -- permits him to safeguard that property, to preserve it from predation by other people.

Ownership of a gun has no impact on the gun (how could it?).

My shotgun is mine. Not as a matter of legalities but as an exclusive moral claim. The impact is there.

it allows the owner to control other people's use of the gun.

Well, yes, of course. It's my gun (or car, or novel, or...).

Marx was correct in stating that property rights MEAN nothing other than the right (legal or natural) of one person to control other people.

Marx was good for stirrin' up envy and nuthin' else. His thinking (and all variations of his thinking) are anti-person, anti-liberty, anti-free will, anti-life. Having read him, you'd do well to cleanse your palate and move and away from him. He deserves no free commercials.

There is no "natural right"to prevent other people from singing a song that is under copyright.

The natural right applies when Joe takes Stan's song and passes it off as his own, drawing profit on it, profit (financial and reputational) that belongs to Stan. Joe, singing Stan's song, attributing the song properly, perhaps drawing a profit on his performance of Stan's song, violates no one.

None of what you write is relevant to my point. Nobody "enslaves" the farmer. He needn't farm at all. You appear not to understand either property or slavery. Your shotgun doesn't know if it is 'yours" or not. Your ownership of it affects nothing other than other humans. ONce again, you are simply asserting that property is reasonable and important. I agree. Nonetheless, it is (and can be) nothing more than one person's control over other people. Marx correctly asserted that capitalists try to misdefine property as the relation between a person and an inanimate object. This is clearly ridiculous. Property affects nothing except the relation between one person and other people vis a vis the inanimate object. I don't see why you keep arguing about things that are utterly irrelevant to this quite obvious point. The notion that it must be incorrect because Karl Marx once made it is an ad hominem, and mere silliness.

Everyone thinks slavery is evil. Therefore you try to compare a lack of property rights to slavery. Marx compared capitalism ot slavery (the owners of the means of production could enslave non-owners). You are both making specious arguments. Of course, in both cases, there are similarities between capitalism and slavery, and losing control of one's production and slavery. So what? Slaves sang spirituals and ate with wooden utensils. Does that make anyone who sings or eats with wooden utensils a slave? Your argument (like Marx's) is a false analogy. Things are not evil because they resemble slavery in one particular way, and the comparison makes you look foolish. It makes it seem as though -- like all those Confederate flag flying yahoos -- you are minimizing the evils of slavery. All laws enslave people who disobey. Therefore, living under a system of laws is a form of slavery (that's an equivalent argument, and equally specious).

[henry quirk]

He needn't farm at all.

He's a free will. He wants to. He buys land. He owns it (morally). He does as he chooses with it, grows what he chooses, gathers the harvest -- his harvest -- to use or dispense or sell as he chooses. Your assessment of his needs is irrelevant.

Your shotgun doesn't know if it is 'yours" or not.

I know. And if taken, I'll get it back. It's mine.

Your ownership of it affects nothing other than other humans.

It affects them becuz they have no say-so over it. Take them out of the equation, however, and the gun is still mine. Natural rights aren't about controlling or denying the other. They're all about you havin' a moral claim to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. If we all die tomorrow leaving you the only person alive, your life, liberty, and property are still exclusively yours.

Everyone thinks slavery is evil.

Becuz -- like murder, rape, thievery, defrauding -- it is.

Therefore you try to compare a lack of property rights to slavery.

No. I insist the depriving of one's property, by another, without just cause, is theft. That this should be the norm is slavery.

[Alexiev]

He's a free will. He wants to. He buys land. He owns it (morally). He does as he chooses with it, grows what he chooses, gathers the harvest -- his harvest -- to use or dispense or sell as he chooses. Your assessment of his needs is

I never mentioned "needs".

It affects them becuz they have no say-so over it. Take them out of the equation, however, and the gun is still mine. Natural rights aren't about controlling or denying the other. They're all about you havin' a moral claim to your, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property. If we all die tomorrow leaving you the only person alive, your life, liberty, and property are still exclusively .

l

If other people are taken out of the equation, your "ownership" of the gun (or anything else) is irrelevant. Why would it matter at all? This is exactly the muddled thinking of which I am accusing you. You seem deluded about what property rights (and probably other rights) comprise. All rights are nothing more than duties on the part of other people. The right to life protects nobody against cancer or grizzly bears. It simply imposes a duty on the part of other humans.

No. I insist the depriving of one's property, by another, without just cause, is theft. That this should be the norm is slavery.

More muddled thinking. Theft is one thing, slavery another. That's why we have two words. You and Marx share a penchant for muddled, propagandists, and silly hyperbole.

[henry quirk]

You seem deluded about what property rights (and probably other rights) comprise.

You're a moral subjectivist, yes? If so, then it's not surprising we can't agree, or even understand one another (I'm a moral objectivist).

[Alexiev]

You seem deluded about what property rights (and probably other rights) comprise.

You're a moral subjectivist, yes? If so, then it's not surprising we can't agree, or even understand one another (I'm a moral objectivist).

Objectivity vs. subjectivity has nothing to do with it. Logic demands that we recognize that property rights -- and all other rights -- are nothing more nor less than duties on the part of our fellow humans. This is clearly true whether morality is objective or subjective. It simply involves the meaning of words and logical inference. Our right to life means that other people (normally) have a duty not to kill us. It has no impact on tigers, avalanches or heart attacks. Our right to liberty does not allow us to fly by flapping our arms. It simply means that other people have a duty not to confine us (without justification). Our right to property simply means other people have a duty not to take our stuff without permission. It does (and can) mean nothing other than that.

[attofishpi]

IF I created a weapon with the ability to kill all men within fifty kilometre radius, do you think you have the right to own it if I am selling?

If I can meet your price: sure.

and by the same measure, do you think all wo/men have equal right to own this weapon?

If any can meet your price: sure.

Not a particularly wise move though is it?

[Skepdick]

Logic demands

Anthropomorphism. Logic is not an agent and places no demands upon us.

that we recognize that property rights -- and all other rights -- are nothing more nor less than duties on the part of our fellow humans.

That's demonstrably nonsense. Our right to life is most threatened by disease and medical conditions.

So as a society we pool our economic resources towards science and medicine in order to uphold that right.

Our right to life means that other people (normally) have a duty not to kill us. It has no impact on tigers, avalanches or heart attacks.

Literally does. Heart attacks and heart disease are the top cause of human death.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... s-of-death

So we pool our collective resources towards fighting heart disease.

Our right to property simply means other people have a duty not to take our stuff without permission.

It also means that society will set up various systems and mechanisms in place to protect property from natural threats. Such as fires.

We have building codes and regulations which ensure that property can survive hurricanes, floods, earthquakes etc.
We have disaster-management.
We have insurance and early-warning systems to protect life and property.

The number of things humans do to protect loss of property (to nature) is so large it ought to squash your ignorance.

It does (and can) mean nothing other than that.

It could mean that you are making an argument from ignorance.

[Alexiev]

Logic demands

Anthropomorphism. Logic is not an agent and places no demands upon us.

that we recognize that property rights -- and all other rights -- are nothing more nor less than duties on the part of our fellow humans.

That's demonstrably nonsense. Our right to life is most threatened by disease and medical conditions.

So as a society we pool our economic resources towards science and medicine in order to uphold that right.

Our right to life means that other people (normally) have a duty not to kill us. It has no impact on tigers, avalanches or heart attacks.

Literally does. Heart attacks and heart disease are the top cause of human death.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... s-of-death

So we pool our collective resources towards fighting heart disease.

Our right to property simply means other people have a duty not to take our stuff without permission.

It also means that society will set up various systems and mechanisms in place to protect property from natural threats. Such as fires.

We have building codes and regulations which ensure that property can survive hurricanes, floods, earthquakes etc.
We have disaster-management.
We have insurance and early-warning systems to protect life and property.

The number of things humans do to protect loss of property (to nature) is so large it ought to squash your ignorance.

It does (and can) mean nothing other than that.

It could mean that you are making an argument from ignorance.

Sorry, but your post is not worthy of a response.

[Skepdick]

...

Sorry, but your post is not worthy of a response.

Then why did you respond to it?

[henry quirk]

Sorry, but your post is not worthy of a response.

[henry quirk]

Not a particularly wise move though is it?

Were we talkin' about what's wise?

If so...

Not particularly wise of you to build a weapon of mass destruction or to put it on the market.

[Skepdick]

Not a particularly wise move though is it?

Were we talkin' about what's wise?

If so...

Not particularly wise of you to build a weapon of mass destruction or to put it on the market.

Or to use it for self-defence.

Mutually assured destruction is still self-destruction, not self-defence.

[Impenitent]

Not a particularly wise move though is it?

Were we talkin' about what's wise?

If so...

Not particularly wise of you to build a weapon of mass destruction or to put it on the market.

Or to use it for self-defence.

Mutually assured destruction is still self-destruction, not self-defence.

so you are saying defend yourself by eliminating those who advocate mutually assured destruction?

Allahu Akbar

-Imp

[Alexiev]

...

Sorry, but your post is not worthy of a response.

Then why did you respond to it?

I wanted you to know.