Ye shall not steal: hydromedusiod theory of property

[Diegor]

For natural law theories, property rights are a formidable problem, because our animal nature is fully compatible with theft. There can be made an argument that property is needed for one's survival, but this does not involve all property or the survival of the others that may depend on alienating one's property. So one needs to appeal to some other nature than biological one; e.g., one's rational nature.

One school of natural theology is that this "other" nature is the better nature we were endowed with during the Creation; the Fall corrupted this original nature but it still has a hold on us, and the moral norms are the remnants of this nature that is cast on our hearts. This nature is not what we presently are but what we supposed to be, ought to be, and will become. We've started as sin-free immortal creatures; it is our own fault that we are mortal, sinful, and thieving. On this theory, property rights derive from our prelapsarian nature, and to explain property one needs to explain how the protection of property naturally emerges from this nature.

We do not have too many examples of immortal animals around, but we do have some polyps that can endlessly regenerate themselves, and T. nutricula mentioned in the previous post is the most complex example of this kind: after releasing the gametes, its adult medusa form undergoes transformation back to the juvenile form, the colonial polyp state, by cell transdifferentiation. Like most other animals, we gradually age and die through senescence after we reach sexual maturity and produce offspring. In contrast, these jellies go back to the cradle, so to speak. It is the endless cycle of maturation followed by rejuvenation, back and forth, back and forth. This cycling is the most advanced form of immortality seen on this planet.

http://shkrobius.livejournal.com/307061.html

[1714189933]

1714189933

[1714189933]

1714189933

[FatherMcGruder]

Hey man, I was just born here.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Even as we speak, there are biological entities out there and forces at work that conspire to turn my inner organs into goo.  Cue scary music.

[The Script]

Even as we speak, there are biological entities out there and forces at work that conspire to turn my inner organs into goo.  Cue scary music.

That is, scary *jazz* music....   


So is the "prelapsarian" view of property rights the one you subscribe to, Diegor?  I tend to believe in God-given natural rights, but try to find other ways to argue them because it does not seem to be a popular view on this forum.

[NghtRppr]

There are no natural laws. The is-ought gap in unbridgeable. The are no moral facts, only moral opinions.

[The Script]

There are no natural laws. The is-ought gap in unbridgeable. The are no moral facts, only moral opinions.

Well, what do you mean by "natural laws"?  Isn't gravity considered to be a natural law (i.e. a law of nature)?  Also, if there are no moral facts why would it be wrong to steal someone's property? 

[NghtRppr]

Well, what do you mean by "natural laws"?

In this context, moral rules based on human nature.

Isn't gravity considered to be a natural law (i.e. a law of nature)?

In the sense that there are laws controlling the universe, many people do but I don't. I think that the universe is completely random. Though, randomness can also allow for patterns, which we observe in hindsight and induce from them universal truths.

See: http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/

I'm a regularist.

Also, if there are no moral facts why would it be wrong to steal someone's property?

It's not wrong, strictly speaking. It's just not appreciated. Many people, myself included, are of the opinion that the non-aggression principle is preferable in order to avoid violence in our daily lives. In common speech though, I do say things are wrong but I'm not ascribing some objective property to them. I'm just stating a preference.

[BitterTea]

A friend of mine wrote the following blog post. Some of you may find it interesting. It's All In Your Mind: A Subjectivist Foundation for Natural Rights.

The most interesting part, to me, is the following:

There is a third natural right leading directly from the first two, but it is less direct, and that is the right to property. If a resource has not been gathered by any subjective entity and then is, the resource becomes the property of the subjective entity that has put their body and time into collecting it. Thus if another subjective entity takes that resource away without the consent of the owner, they have, through the clever leveraging of time, controlled the body of the owner. It is in effect the taker making a claim that the use of the body and time of the owner is theirs regardless of the wishes of the owner. It is thus the same thing as if the taker had beaten the owner into gaining the resource and beaten them to take it. It is theft and it is characterized by its aggressive violence and thus it breaks the social contract.

The right to property is also a negative right, the right to expect that other subjective entities will not infringe upon one’s liberty by enslaving one’s past through the theft of one’s property.

But you should really read the whole thing.

[benjamindees]

In the sense that there are laws controlling the universe, many people do but I don't. I think that the universe is completely random. Though, randomness can also allow for patterns, which we observe in hindsight and induce from them universal truths.

If the universe is completely random, can you point to any examples of (random) net entropy decrease?

[mewantsbitcoins]

In the sense that there are laws controlling the universe, many people do but I don't. I think that the universe is completely random. Though, randomness can also allow for patterns, which we observe in hindsight and induce from them universal truths.

If the universe is completely random, can you point to any examples of (random) net entropy decrease?

Human birth

[NghtRppr]

If the universe is completely random, can you point to any examples of (random) net entropy decrease?

Your question is a non sequitur.

[benjamindees]

Property rights aren't a problem for natural law theories.  They arise naturally as a compromise between (the animal-nature-compatible) alternatives of either violent competition for scarce resources or simply eliminating competitors pre-emptively.  Property is one of the most beneficial applications of the non-aggression principle.

If the universe is completely random, can you point to any examples of (random) net entropy decrease?

Your question is a non sequitur.

I'll take that as a "no" then.

Human birth

Do you mean conception, or haven't you noticed that pregnant women tend to eat more than usual?

[NghtRppr]

I'll take that as a "no" then.

Take it as a "the latter proves nothing about the former". The answer is irrelevant.

[benjamindees]

I think that the universe is completely random. Though, randomness can also allow for patterns, which we observe in hindsight and induce from them universal truths.

What a curious statement.  You can't induce anything from complete randomness, let alone universal truths.  How do you deal in cryptographic currency and not know this?  Do you really think the universe is "completely random" or is that just a misstatement or what?

[NghtRppr]

You can't induce anything from complete randomness, let alone universal truths.

Perhaps you don't understand randomness? Most people don't. You probably think that randomness equals uniform distribution but that's wrong. Here's an example. Guess which of these is a series of coin flips and which is me picking the T's and H's.

1. TTTTTHTHHHTTTHHT

2. THHTHTTHTHHTTHTH

Most people would guess that (2) is random but that's the one I made up just to "look" random. It's actually (1) that was taken from a series of coin flips. Most people don't expect to see long runs of T's or H's because they equate randomness with a uniform distribution. However, if I write down all finite length permutations of T's and H's, toss them into a gigantic hat and pull one out, there's a chance that I could pick out the one that spells out, in binary, the King James version of the Bible, "War and Peace" or even the collected works of Douglas Adams. Though unlikely, it's not impossible. All patterns, be they complex or simple, are possible with randomness. Just like it's possible that all the patterns we see in the universe are the products of randomness. Combine that with the fact that our very existence depends on patterns and we wouldn't be around to marvel at the more uniform distribution that could be possible. That's the anthropic principle at work.

As for induction, that's a classic problem in philosophy. Induction is based on the belief that the future will resemble the past but there's no guarantee of that. You can say "induction has always worked". Of course it has but that doesn't mean that it will continue to work, unless you assume induction is true thereby begging the question. No, the reason why induction isn't thrown out the window is because, if the future resembles the past, induction is the best method of predicting it. If it doesn't, then induction is no better and no worse than guessing. At least with induction we have a chance of getting things right. Induction is therefore pragmatically vindicated, though not proven.

[benjamindees]

Yes, I understand both randomness and induction.  But please tell us how you induce anything you consider "true" from data that you consider "completely random".  Randomness precludes predictability.

[NghtRppr]

But please tell us how you induce anything you consider "true" from data that you consider "completely random".

The results of induction are problematic regardless of whether the universe is random or not. As I just explained, even if the universe isn't random, we don't know that the future will resemble the past. Induction never tells us what is certainly true, only what is probably true in relation to our prior knowledge.

Randomness precludes predictability.

Let's narrow our focus from all the finite length permutations of T's and H's to just two, both possible with randomness. Instead of writing the strings down on a piece of paper, let's imagine that we are watching the flips occur in real time.

1. THTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTH ... and so on for a really long time

2. THTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTH ... and so on for a really long time and then TTTHTHHTTTTTHTHHHT

We stipulate that the series we are watching is one of these two. In both cases, we will notice a pattern of T's and H's. In both cases, after seeing a T we will predict the next flip will be an H, even though it's random. In the case of (2) our predictions will eventually fail as the alternating T-then-H pattern breaks down. However, in the case of (1) our predictions will never fail. We can't be certain that we are observing (1) rather than (2) beforehand but we can get lucky.

[MacFall]

Well, what do you mean by "natural laws"?

In this context, moral rules based on human nature.

They exist in the same way that hygenic or nutritional laws based on human nature exist. They are conditional imperatives: "if you want to achieve [the greatest possible long-term material well-being and have healthy relationships], then you must [refrain from the use of force against non-violent persons]."

I do not believe that they can exist as anything other than that without a supernatural consciousness to issue them (in which I believe, but I don't try to argue the point with non-theists from that angle because it's quite pointless).

I think that the universe is completely random.

In which case you can't believe that you really think at all, as Reason is an ordered process which cannot exist in a fundamentally orderless universe.

[MacFall]

As for induction, that's a classic problem in philosophy. Induction is based on the belief that the future will resemble the past but there's no guarantee of that. You can say "induction has always worked". Of course it has but that doesn't mean that it will continue to work, unless you assume induction is true thereby begging the question.

ohai, John Maynard Keynes.

[NghtRppr]

Reason is an ordered process which cannot exist in a fundamentally orderless universe

Randomness doesn't equate to disorder. Read the rest of my comments for examples.

ohai, John Maynard Keynes.

Do you have a point to make? How is some discredited economist relevant to what I said? Please be constructive.

[MacFall]

Reason is an ordered process which cannot exist in a fundamentally orderless universe

Randomness doesn't equate to disorder. Read the rest of my comments for examples.

Your examples didn't demonstrate that at all. Saying that the universe is random but not disorderly is to say that cause and effect exist while denying the existence of causal laws.

Also,

Induction never tells us what is certainly true, only what is probably true in relation to our prior knowledge.

Then you can only believe that the universe is "probably" random. You can't know it. You can't know anything at all. Which means I'm just as likely to be correct in my belief that the Universe is an internally deterministic system injected with human Free Will by a supernatural Being as you are that the Universe is a purely natural, purely random event. If everything (including human thought) is random, then all thought is equally valid, just as all thought would be equally invalid in a purely deterministic Universe.

ohai, John Maynard Keynes.

Do you have a point to make? How is some discredited economist relevant to what I said? Please be constructive.

If you are really not aware of how your beliefs are relevant to the epistemological foundation of Keynesian thought, then I leave it as an exercise to you to find out. Here's a clue: before he wrote the General Theory, he wrote a book detailing the same epistemology you hold. It's important because it implies the economics of the General Theory by denying that such things as "economic laws" exist.

[NghtRppr]

Your examples didn't demonstrate that at all.

They demonstrate that we can have patterns without necessary causation. Do you disagree? If so, why?

Then you can only believe that the universe is "probably" random.

Exactly right. We both have beliefs about the universe that can't be falsified. I believe it's random and you apparently believe that it's not. Either of our beliefs are completely consistent with every possible observation. Since we can't falsify each others claims, we have to appeal to something else since it's possible that either of us could be right. I appeal to Occam's Razor. We already know that the universe behaves a certain way and I claim that it "just does" without any hidden, unprovable necessary connections. If you think otherwise, you have the burden of believing in something akin to religious faith. Just like I can't prove God doesn't exist but still think there probably isn't a God. I also can't prove necessary connections don't exist but I still think they probably don't. My position is more empirical than yours, if you choose to deny the regularist position.

If you are really not aware of how your beliefs are relevant to the epistemological foundation of Keynesian thought, then I leave it as an exercise to you to find out. Here's a clue: before he wrote the General Theory, he wrote a book detailing the same epistemology you hold. It's important because it implies the economics of the General Theory by denying that such things as "economic laws" exist.

You clearly don't understand my beliefs. Under my view, economic laws are real and every bit as law-like as the laws of nature. I'm downgrading the laws of nature, not economic laws. I posted this link earlier. Please read it before you presume to tell me what my beliefs entail.

Here's what I believe:

A good example embodying the Regularists’ view can be found in the proposition, attributed to Sir Thomas Gresham (1519?-1579) but already known earlier, called – not surprisingly – “Gresham’s Law”:

    [Gresham's Law is] the theory holding that if two kinds of money in circulation have the same denominational value but different intrinsic values, the money with higher intrinsic value will be hoarded and eventually driven out of circulation by the money with lesser intrinsic value.

In effect what this “law” states is that ‘bad money drives out good’. For example, in countries where the governments begin issuing vast amounts of paper money, that money becomes next-to-worthless and people hoard ‘good’ money, e.g. gold and silver coins, that is, “good” money ceases to circulate.

Why, when paper money becomes virtually worthless, do people hoard gold? Because gold retains its economic value – it can be used in emergencies to purchase food, clothing, flight (if need be), medicine, etc., even when “bad” paper money will likely not be able to be so used. People do not hoard gold under such circumstances because Gresham’s “Law” forces them to do so. Gresham’s “Law” is purely descriptive (not prescriptive) and illustrates well the point Regularists insist upon: namely, that laws of economics are not causal agents – they do not force the world to be some particular way rather than another. (Notice, too, how this non-nomological “Law” works perfectly adequately in explaining persons’ behavior. Citing regularities can, and does, explain the way the world is. One does not need to posit an underlying, inaccessible, nomicity.)

The manner in which we regard Gresham’s “Law” ought, Regularists suggest, to be the way we regard all laws of nature. The laws of physics and chemistry are no different than the laws of economics. All laws of nature – of physics, of chemistry, of biology, of economics, of psychology, of sociology, and so forth – are nothing more, nor anything less, than (a certain subclass of) true propositions.

I couldn't ask for a more direct refutation of your argument.

[MacFall]

Your examples didn't demonstrate that at all.

They demonstrate that we can have patterns without necessary causation. Do you disagree? If so, why?

If a "pattern" is nothing more than a random series of recurrences of previous events, then it is completely meaningless. It proves nothing but that the same thing can happen twice, at random; it does not supply us with any basis for believing that the pattern will continue, neither "definitely" nor "probably". One can't say, "we can assume that X will probably occur because it has occurred many times in the past in similar conditions" without implying that those conditions cause X to occur, and what's more, that something more fundamental to the nature of reality causes those conditions to have that effect.

You say that randomness doesn't equate to equal distribution, but something cannot possibly be factually more likely to occur than anything else without something causing it to be so. Mass cannot be assumed to be likely to continue to attract mass unless there is something in Nature that makes it behave in that way. The fact that mass has always attracted mass in the past gives us absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that it is any more likely to do so in the future than not without admitting causality. If there is no causality, then anything that looks like probability is just an illusion. Denying causality reduces all theory to wild guessing.

...We both have beliefs about the universe that can't be falsified. I believe it's random and you apparently believe that it's not. Either of our beliefs are completely consistent with every possible observation. Since we can't falsify each others claims, we have to appeal to something else since it's possible that either of us could be right. I appeal to Occam's Razor. We already know that the universe behaves a certain way and I claim that it "just does" without any hidden, unprovable necessary connections.

You say that despite the fact that all observation suggests that things always act in a certain way, and implies causality. Denying that is not Occam's Razor; it's just an assertion without any empirical support. And besides, "it just does" still leaves open the question of "why?" Repeating "it just does" is circular reasoning. Saying "because Nature is governed by causal laws" at least provides an answer. It is no more falsifiable than your belief, but my belief at least appears to be supported by all the evidence that experience has to offer.

If you think otherwise, you have the burden of believing in something akin to religious faith.

It's not a burden at all. I believe in God because I see the existence of a supernatural Ultimate Cause as being far more likely than the innumerable coincidences that would have had to occur to bring something as complex as human consciousness into existence, considering each coincidence as a separate assumption. Of course it is religious faith; I am a Christian after all. However, I'm not trying to prove that God exists in this thread. I am only arguing for causality.

You clearly don't understand my beliefs. Under my view, economic laws are real and every bit as law-like as the laws of nature. I'm downgrading the laws of nature, not economic laws.

And in so doing, you relegate economic laws to "things which I believe will apply in the future", while at the same time denying that you have any identifiable reason for such belief. Which Keynes likewise did, in his work before the General Theory. In denying that economic laws are descriptive of things that are fundamentally true about human nature, he was able to posit that they could be "broken" without predictable consequences. E.g., we don't really know that increasing the quantity of money will result in higher prices just because it has in the past. To say otherwise is to posit a naive, causal view of the world. Therefore we shall empower the government to meddle in the economy without end. Not only do we reject the childish causal-realism of the Austrians, we also don't know whether something the government does that works this time will even work again in the future.

Which explains the numerous and blatant contradictions in the General Theory. Keynes really didn't believe that he was describing a fully consistent system in his economics.

[NghtRppr]

I believe in God because I see the existence of a supernatural Ultimate Cause as being far more likely than the innumerable coincidences that would have had to occur to bring something as complex as human consciousness into existence, considering each coincidence as a separate assumption.

That's all I need to read to realize that any further dialog with you would be a waste of my time. Good luck in life. I wish the best for you.

[MacFall]

I don't need luck. My life isn't governed by blind, stupid chance. Thanks for the well wishes, though. Also, I appreciate you leaving my rebuttals to your position unchallenged. (Note: the fact that I believe in God doesn't affect my arguments for a causal reality at all, because I did not argue for causality from a theistic position.)

[mewantsbitcoins]

MacFall, I think God created man just forgot to create himself

edit: is it time for the famous George Carlin's rant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

[NghtRppr]

My life isn't governed by blind, stupid chance.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.

[lumos]

assumption number 1 'because our animal nature is fully compatible with theft. '

[em3rgentOrdr]

assumption number 1 'because our animal nature is fully compatible with theft. '

Wow.  What a Fail assumption.

[lumos]

assumption number 1 'because our animal nature is fully compatible with theft. '

Wow.  What a Fail assumption.

is that sarcasm?
his assertion is that we have theft in our nature? that is an assumption, a wrong one. it is our nature to be altruists, theft is something outliers do, theft is something they are forced to do by economic circumstance.

[MacFall]

Theft is certainly within the scope of human nature, otherwise there would be no thieves. However, it is certainly not a dominant quality, as it does not occur within what may be called "normal conditions". Some external condition out of the ordinary may drive a man to abandon his moral code and steal food rather than starve, or some internal malady may give him a perverse thrill from the act of theft. But the vast majority of people do not steal, and would never even seriously consider it.

What may be said in terms of human nature is that it drives us away from theft by showing us through our reason that we will have more to consume if we live peacefully with our neighbors and trade to our mutual benefit. However, the abnormal mindset that impedes such reason does exist within human nature. The state, in particular, expends an incredible amount of time and energy in trying to obfuscate the long-term ill effects of parasitism, and has done so with great success. The political mindset induces some men, out of ignorance or malice, to act against what is ultimately in humanity's interests, but it does not induce them to act against human nature, because when man chooses the political means over the economic means, he is still acting as a rational human being, albeit a sick or foolish one.

[em3rgentOrdr]

assumption number 1 'because our animal nature is fully compatible with theft. '

Wow.  What a Fail assumption.

is that sarcasm?
his assertion is that we have theft in our nature? that is an assumption, a wrong one. it is our nature to be altruists, theft is something outliers do, theft is something they are forced to do by economic circumstance.

In that case, it is a non-sequentior.