After the asgaard had defeated the old rulers, the giants, they were faced with a problem. The giants had been defeated by the aasgards together with the rest of the people, and it had been declared that from now all people were free and equal!
But the aasgards wanted to rule the people and become rich. But how could they say that all people are free and equal, yet not free and equal? The aasgards asked the cunning trickster Locke to provide a solution to this dilemma.
The solution Locke came up with was this: The people being free and equal had voluntarily agreed to not be free and equal! The fact that the aasgards were rich and powerful and every day in control of the work of the rest of the people was the result of free agreements, and the bulk of these agreements had been met in ancient times that no body remember.
@RV56 "The fact that the aasgards were rich and powerful and every day in control of the work of the rest of the people was the result of free agreements"
If that's what each individual person wanted, and they did it under no duress or coercion, then there's no problem. Ask a masochist why they voluntarily choose to be dominated and abused. The only problem comes when that directive is enforced on subsequent generations who did not consent. I.E. the social contract.
@RV56 But then you are just arguing over semantics. Self-ownership might not be the best of terms, because you cannot "own" something you cannot vacate, and since you cannot vacate your body, you technically can't "own" it. However you do not disagree with the principal of self ownership, which can be described as body autonomy, or personal sovereignty. Those terms have nearly identical definitions and principals, however self-ownership is easier to understand to the layperson.
@Dirge987 No, it is not just semantics. If I own my body, it is something that I can trade. If I am my body, that would be called slavery. And I belive it is slavery when I sell my body to an employer. I am against the whole idea of employing people, for me it is slavery. If we were truly free we would join free associations, but we would not sell ourselves. If you sell yourself, you are not free. You do so because you need to. Because you cant reproduce using your own labour on your own terms.
@RV56 But you are taking voluntary trade, and aggressive slavery and making it the same thing. It's like saying having consensual sex and committing rape are the same thing when they're not.
Because I own my body and my time, I have the ability to sell my body and my time voluntarily, and that's what I do by working. If the trade between my labor and money were not worth it for me, if I could find something better somewhere else, I would.
Good video, and I mostly agree with you, there's just one thing.
When you make the argument that we own ourself because we control ourself when we use the argument that we, either own ourself or not, you are arguing that we control ourself, not that we own ourself. Since there is a difference between legitimate ownership and simple control, that argument doesn't say anything about property rights over ones own body, merely that we control ourself, which is a scientific fact, not a moral value.
@LibertyOfExpression "there is a difference between legitimate ownership and simple control,"
Yes. Stephs' argument here fails to distinguish between use/possession and ownership. That's a serious problem imo. I just made a video response that talks about this.
@LibertyOfExpression I've thought about this before, and this is the conclusion I came to. Because your brain can control your body without the use of force as a natural biological process, and since no other brain or body can control you without the use of force, your brain/consciousness therefore have legitimate ownership over your body.
Turds Have MORE RIGHTS than humans. When you see a Turd on the pavement you show the Turd Respect and step aside, when you see an human you just step right over them and stamp them out like a butt-end from your cigarette. The argument for human rights does not exist. It's to late for that now, The Military Own Us. And They Will Do As They Have Allways Done.Treat us like butt-ends.
Just because you build a house you think you own it? All of the earth's resources are the common inheritage of the world's creatures, what makes you think you can assemble them in a construction and refuse everyone else the right to use them?
i know this isn't going to mean much for your sapient highness since you eliminated any possibility of accepting an answer by that last argument that i am arguing against self ownership by writing this but... how many times do people have to tell «anarcho-capitalists», people like proudhon make the distinction between property that is exploiting and posession... a webcam is posession, a factory is property.proving «self-ownership» doesn't lead to proving you can own a mean of production
All property belongs to the State. You have no right to a JURY TRIALl anymore that is why propety taxes keep growing in number and amounts. This right was taken away, by a JUDGE who has no power to make LAW. Don't believe me, contact your District Attorney, he/she will tell you that when is comes to property taxes you are not entitled to a JURY TRIAL as ruled by Case bla bla . Get your heads out of your ??? and support a real freedom movement, join us now. propertyrightsnow@yahoo.com
Stephan, you have immensly disappointed me. I've watched many of your videos and have appreciated your work very much until I saw this one. I cannot start explaining on how many levels you're simply wrong. This video contains so many logical fallacies I'd need an entire book to refute them (and I can do that if I had the time and patience). To top it all, your misunderstanding of Proudhon's theory is just shameful. It's clear you never seriously studied a word he wrote.
I don't get what the whole problem with property rights are. You own your brain, therefore you own your arms and your labor, which can be transferred into purchasing power (money) and transfered into land. It comes pretty damn naturally and is very consistent as far as i know and also empirical.
Have you changed your position on property rights? I agree with Marc Stevens that rights are a legal claim.
A thief forces you to wax his car. He stole your time and energy. He forced you to contract under duress. Now he must perform - give consideration. You decide how much the bill is.
Rights are product of reason and exist by contract. Try to get a bee, rattle snake or grizzly bear to contract.
Non initiation of force principle is the victim decides the bill as a right by contract.
"i own the house that i built" is correct in one sense of the word "own" that you used. that is, that you are the person who actually built the house (just as that guy was the one who "owned the argument" because he was the one who actually argued)
It would be strange to say that you didn't build the house.
But it does make sense to say that you now have sole rights to the uses of the house, which is the other definition of ownership that you didn't argue for.
provide other work to their community. They might work at the watch factory, and they might work somewhere else useful to the community. If they are unable to do useful work for the community due to physical or mental disabilities they are relieved by the community and cared for. Otherwise they have to work or otherwise can fuck off and die, so to speak. So you can not argue that property rights can never be abolished and replaced for other forms of possession. Possession based on use. (2)
Well don't anarchists usually argue (I consider myself anarcho-communists) that there's a difference between property and possession? That there are different forms of possession.,, So your watch is your possession because you use it for yourself and everybody else has a right to have a watch, but the watch factory is collectively owned by the community and the watches distributed among the members of that community according to their needs. The members of this community in their turn (1)
Seems, to me, that watches are the product of someone's labor, so if that person produces a watch, and it is taken from him to give to someone else according to that person's "needs" without giving the producer something equally of value (to him), then it is theft. When he gets tired of that sort of thing, he will quit producing unless he is coerced to continue, which is, of course, slavery. I don't do sports, but money is taken from me to build a sports arena: boils down to slavery.
It is not self contradicting to argue that property rights are injust with the use of objects that are someone's property.
If it were, then it would also be self contradictory to argue that the notion 'state' is injust, if you are a citizen of a country with a state.
Using elements in your current but unwanted situation to get yourself to another (more preferable) situation is not selfcontradictory. It seems to me that doing nothing about an unwanted situation is self contradictory.
This is so great really, and I never really noticed it before.
What we do is, we take something with a common definition (self-ownership), then give it a non-standard definition (body control). Then after I have accepted the non-standard definition, we agree that it is true.
And last, slide in all the stuff that comes in with the standard definition (ownership/property rights), and not the things that follow from the proposed definition (all animals control their body).
Let me try-
I say that God is everything that exists: you, me, the trees, etc.
Since God is everything, then we must agree that God exists.
Since God exists then it is only reasonable that we worship and praise the ultimate being of the universe.
. If this is true, than the statement is false, which makes it true :)). Alice in Wunderland kind of stuff. Or if you will, time-travel kind of problem. One could say therefore that this statement is completely false because, or that it is completely true, because, obviously, it always produces a truthful conclusion as much as it produces a false conclusion.. where do you go from here?
wiht all due respect, this is a bullshit debate, which ofcourse it is because it is based primarily on the play of words and not the content for which they should stand. All the statements made here and shown to be self-contradictory can be reformulated in a way that they no longer are and will still mean the same thing to 99% of the people. Logic as a scientific discipline is imperfect because it relies on the language which is imperfect, but it assumes that it is perfect.
Have you changed your position on property rights? I agree with Marc Stevens that rights are a legal claim.
A thief forces you to wax his car. He stole your time and energy. He forced you to contract under duress. Now he must perform - give consideration. You decide how much the bill is.
Rights are product of reason and exist by contract. Try to get a bee, rattle snake or grizzly bear to contract.
Non initiation of force principle is the victim decides the bill as a right by contract.
@stefbot Logic is irrelevant. All that matters is if the argument convinces. Your argument is unconvincing. You have not natural rights. You have no entitlement or inheritance of rights. If you want something, you have to earn it, take it, and achieve it yourself. No one will do it for you. Take responsibility for yourself. Protect your own possessions.
People who expect to be granted rights are infantile. The concept of inalienable rights are part of what the State/hierarchy is founded upon.
@landgabriel Your comment implies we have no Rights. The philosophical foundation to: Locke, Hobbes and Jefferson’s work materializes when using science to investigate our unalienable Rights are from the Laws of Nature. It becomes clear these Rights apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in some Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems. See my channel video for the proof.
@Mike10four What laws? There are no such laws. They are only of your own creation. All these words, 'bacteria' etc have no meaning unless I consent to them having meaning. You can not force my consent.
And you have no rights that I do not agree to you having.
You may say these things were "traded," but who granted "ownership" to the things that were bought? The reality is that it is the workers of the world who have made everything by their own actions. But the surplus value produced in the labor process is taken from the worker by the capitalist under duress. Capitalism is founded upon force and violence. Also, where does one draw the line between "mores" and "laws"? How strong does social organization have to be before a more is a law?
So you are exclusively using your computer as property to argue against the validity of property rights -- you might want to take another run at that one... :)
i am a bit curious, are you german, stefan? i seem to hear a bit of an accent,. if so, you should also do your stuff in german, god knows germans need it badly
To address your starting argument: "one should look at the form and not the content", I would like to point that the form does not exist without the content, or rather the form is only a way of expressing the content. The two are inseparable. Form can not exist without the content or vice versa. So by your own standards the statement is self contradictory. It can be used however, to express certain views or perceived truths, which invalidates your starting argument, if u know what i mean :)
@stefbot Stephan, read Proudhon's book "What is property". READ IT EARNESTLY. You're confusing the two very different meanings of the word 'property' and use it as if they were the same. Until you realize this crucial distinction you can only keep talking nonsense. No offence, but that's what it is.
@stefbot this is the strawman fallacy you're using. You need to stop being a faggot and watch my video about property rights. I spoke with your mother, she says you're a faggot too.
@stefbot I'm sorry, stefbot, I was very rude to you just now, and I regret my actions. I'm hoping my video about property rights will appeal to your wish to eliminate self-comtradictory statements. Its the comments section, we all tend to do things for effect here (even your comments, man ;-) )
@FlamingHound Marxist alienation theory? I didn't know anyone still believed that nonsense, since Marx's labor theory of value upon which it rests has been thoroughly shot down by the neo-classicals. No self-respecting economist/theorist would defend labor theory of value today.
@epilp88 WRONG, Labour theory of value is alive and well more than ever. I suggest reading the book "Studies in Mutualist Political Economy" by Kevin Carson - he offers a very convincing refutation of the theory's critique.
@Heller86 I don't doubt there are still chumps peddling labor theory of value, I just don't understand why anyone would waste their time with such nonsense given the last 140 years of development in economic theory.
@epilp88 You won't get away from a serious discussion by saying "you're views are nonsense". Read Kevin Carson's book - he's very much aware of the 140 years of development in economic thought and he nontheless manages to effectively refute the so-called refutations of labour theory of value (while incorporating some other elements of modern economy, especially the Austrian school).
Peddle sophistry much? It's pretty easy to pop his bubble with two simple realities: (1)"Property/ownership" is relative and subjective. (2) Nobody builds anything by "their own actions" alone. Did the "builder" build the land on which the house sits? Did s/he cut the timber and mill it? Did s/he forge the steel and cast them into nails, hammers, etc? Further, what separates the "builder" from everything else? Nothing. There is no invisible dividing line. The separation is conceptual only.
I could claim that you can't do anything at all unless you are alive as you are using the fact that you are alive to do anything else. Therefore, you should steal food and medicine to keep yourself alive when you need to, violating property rights. What's your answer?
Well, the way I see it, is that you would have to prove that all of the ethics rules (no steal, no killing, etc) have equal priorities. But it feels a lot like life has a much higher priority than anything else. For example, if property can be violated, you can still live. However, if living is impossible, then you cannot own property. This tells me that life is much so more fundamental than property that it justify the violation of property when life is in danger. And I have the proof:
The proof is self defense. According to you, you own your body as it is your property and yours alone. However, when your life is in danger, you have the right to kill the attacker, destroying his body property to protect yours. This proves that life is higher than property as it is justified to destroy property in order to protect life, in self defense. And if it is justify to kill others to save life, then surely it is justified to steal food to do the same, as the crime is smaller.
well it is dead in the sense of globalization. thats what steff is implying. he even argues that because nations dont really exist and now that people comprehend that idea it has killed that idea. but i mean its sort of debatable on some level. but the state is imaginary than it was never alive idk lmao
Amazing... I tried to prove your property rights video was flawed by responding to your video to other people. I learned that it was futile debating your content with a random person that doesnt own your content. i mostly got blank stares or no response. My conclusion: it is safe to know that you own yourself and the effects of your actions. Great video... 5 stars.
vktrsx, you're pretending that you're smarter than everyone, that you've heard it all before, and it's not worth your time to address Stefan's points on the merits. This is not healthy behavior, and often stems from personality problems (grandiosity and vanity) arising from belittling abuse suffered at the hands of a domineering parent. Instead, please use your intellectual gifts to describe what you think is the correct philosophy, rather than offer empty, self-aggrandizing attacks.
I stopped it after you said it wouldn't be based on gods, govs, gremlins, etc., because I can't bear to hear what's coming (I'll be shocked if I'm wrong):
Your so-called "private property rights" are derived from a different gremlin called "self-ownership," which is essentially the premise that you are like the little alien from Men In Black who piloted the human robot from inside the head. "You" live up there; "your" body is just a machine you pilot.
Oh, and "nothing is certain" isn't a self-contradictory statement. If the argument applies to itself, then the argument *might* be true. It might be false, too. But that doesn't mean it's automatically false.
This argument is ludicrous. You secretly bundled several concepts in the word "ownership," proved that one of these concepts applies to the self & actions, and therefore all the other concepts in the word "ownership" apply as well. It's blatant equivocation, and you should be ashamed.
I think I understand what you mean - "Thinking is very hard, and logical rebuttals are complicated, so I'm just going to make pompous assertions!" Thanks for your input, I like ice cream! :)
Oh, I'm not the one making pompous assertions here. You committed logical fallacies, and I pointed some of them out. That's *so* much more pompous than "I'm saving absolutist morality from gods and governments!"
I like the use of *so* here. I think it really drives the point home. Sort of like sooooooo.....you can almost hear the swing sets squeaking in the background.
Still no arguments set forth, but the statements are more colorful for sure. ;)
You've taken the phrase "property is theft" WAAAY out of context here (unintentionally I hope). Proudhon also said: "property is liberty" and "property is freedom" But you don't hear that quoted as often do you
Applied IN-CONTEXT the age-old whole "Performative Contradiction" argument (which originated from Marx) falls apart
Proudhon meant: the right of individuals to use and abused property disconnected from use so long as the owner submits to state-sanctioned property titles was illegitimate
This proves only Property Rights in that which is the product of human labour. Land is not the product of human labour therefore the case for Property Rights in land is not proven. This is no justfication for property rights in land. Working a piece of by the application of labour does not "mix" labour with the land. The two can always be kept separate. Land acquires a value by the presence and action of the community.
There's enough lands on earth for every individuals, so why go through the hassle of having is community-owned, ever heard of the tragedy of the commons?
I will have an acre in the middle of the City of London. You can have an acre of heather moor in the north of Scotland. That's a fair distribution, is it not?
Who is talking about community ownership of land? Who needs ownership of land anyway? Who needs more than the right of secure and undisturbed occupation?
If I am going to invest a million dollars of other people's money (investors) into a piece of land, then I want to be good and sure I own that land. Otherwise it would be like building you a mansion.
Study some history of industrialization, particularly Taiwan and Hong Kong. Property rights (in land) are absolutely foundational to the formation of a middle class. Absolutely foundational.
Business people do not need absolute ownership of land. They need the assured right of continued occupation.
In Hong Kong all land is owned by the state and is leased. It has thrived on this system as the government has ample revenue without having to impose high taxes labour. If I recall correctly, Taiwan operates under a system of land value taxation which has a similar effect. If what you said was true, nobody would ever invest on leasehold land.
Let's say I build a house on some land. The only way you can build something else on top of that land is if you fuck up my house and thus would be violating my property rights. Right to own land is not a required to own property and to keep property secured in a certain place.
Well no duh. Of course if the majority doesnt't believe in property rights it is pointless to be claiming you have those rights, just as you cannot have anarchism if the majority does not believe in anarchism. No one should be denying that you have to convince society to protect those rights. Argueing that rights should be accepted by society is not the same thing as majoritarianism, rights come FROM the larger part of society.
Did anyone else suddenly realize that Stefan isn't real. I propose to you that we have in fact just watched a video arguing that he exists created by a computer in order to prove we're gullible!
The computer is clearly attempting to prove Stefan is real through logical argument which will in turn create a paradox and destroy the world. Beware!
Btw, you don't own your body, if you did there'd be no drug testing. Drug testing is self reinforcing proof that you're government property. The end. :)
Ofcourse their are some things that can not be described by language, including this comment, their by this comment can not be read and you are imagining reading
Ofcourse their are some things that can not be described by language, including this comment, their by this comment can not be read and you are imagining,
the statement "I own my body" implies that you and your body are separate things; a ghost in a shell view if you will. statements like "i control my body" also imply that the body needs to be controlled by some force outside of laws of physics. there is no "I own my body" or "i control my body" there is simply "this body performed this action" according to natural forces (physics).
"form" over a "quagmire of content" is like style over substance. is it worth winning a debate if we lose information in the process?
ps. the metaphor of "building a house, so you own it" only works under assunption that not only are all materials "yours" to begin with, but that the land where you build is yours as well, which is as much yours as air.
you may argue that you work the land, but i put in more hours than the financiers of the university i work at and i own nothing there
"so you own it" only works under assunption that not only are all materials "yours" to begin with"
What Stef said was you own the effects of your actions. Yes, you clearly can't own UNMOLDED land since that kind of land is not an effect of your actions. Also, the ability to own land is not required to build a house (an effect of your actions). I made a comment on this channel a couple days ago explaining why.
What about intellectual property? I don't know if you've spoken about it (I haven't heard many of your podcasts), but I would be interested to see what you have to say. (I, myself, am quite staunchly opposed to intellectual property.)
If you say you do, then are allready accepting the validity of intellectual property. (Well, AT LEAST that what you actually created....not just simply what you discovered)
adorianvlad-- there are many real world examples like that. 1 bucket of sand + 1/2 bucket mortar (powder) + water = 1 bucket mortar. What appears logical is often not true. But 1 bucket sand + 1/2 bucket sand = 1.5 buckets sand. Both equations are consistent relative to the context or hidden process. But on their face they appear to inconsistent.
Can we find two things which are identical to each other ? Perhaps so, but we cannot put them together (due to Pauli Exclusion Principle). If they are not being placed together, we need to measure them separately to make sure that they are identical, but now we have the problem of Uncertainty Principle. As a last resort, you may take out a ruler and say, "OK this is the standard ruler and all length units should be based on it." We know that the length of this ruler will change according to
different temperatures. The space itself may also change depending on gravitation.
As a conclusion, there is no empirical proof that "1+1=2" is a physical reality. It is very likely that this axiom, together with many other similar axioms, are mere illusions produced by neural activities. Unfortunately, most scientific theories are based on this inaccurate premise. The implication is profound.
Reference
Parigi, V., Zavatta, A., Kim, M.S. & Bellini, M. (2007)Probing Quantum Commutation Rules
You may be argueing that our senses may not be valid but by the act of you argueing with us on youtube it is very clear to me that you do not believe that your senses are not valid. Then why are you argueing with us as though we are true? You could just simply "will away" our annoying babbling since we are nothing more than subjective characters in your mind. It is retarded to be argueing with characters in your mind about who their master is. Just show them.
Well, you qouted a guy who thought it was a shame for people to accept "1+1=2". You did not critisize him so what is implied there is
1:You want us to reject our senses when they tell us 1+1=2 is true in the real world
2:Because of the fact you are argueing with us on youtube as though your senses are valid, you clearly do not believe that one should reject his/her senses.
Well, God, Government, has been portrayed as being fictive or such, by stef, isn't it?
We may extrapolate from my above argument that eventually everything has just an axiomatic substrate.
Humans cannot prove anything whatsoever that it is true. I am not suggesting that everything is an illusion, only that everything is presumed to be contrived with a degree of surety, the bottom line being an axiomatic view upon the whole world.
Government and Religions should be then DISREGARDED peculiarly?
Yeah, and to sound even more weird, regarding my comments in this video, 1+1=2, it is not always true; imagine 2 cups half-filled with 2 different substances that react with each other in a manner I believe its called endothermic reactions, when the result solution in volume, is less then the sum of each initial volumes. Nevermind the other examples, when 1 plus 1 in other bases (apart from 10) doesn't equal 2. All I'm trying to say here, folks, is that from theory to practice is a big leap...
Well your argument that consistency must be better than inconsistency was a bit weak so I can't say whether I agree or not. Your second claim that "If inconsistency is better than consistency then you must consistently apply a rule called inconsistency." is just false. You very well could inconsistently apply a rule of inconsistency. That fact that either way you have to sometimes be consistent just proves that you don't always get what you want. Nice try though, and happy new year.
Well I suppose the simple answer is that it takes effort to be consistent otherwise you wouldn't need to discuss self detonating arguments and such.
Truly though, you need to elaborate on why it is even relevant that I know my rule of inconsistency is inconsistent. "Compared to what?" is exactly right! I don't know but I suspect this line of questioning is only important if you first accept consistency is better than inconsistency.
On further thought, I think all you can really say is that, 'If we are to engage in reasonable debate we need to accept consistency.' However, this isn't the same as saying that consistency is better than inconsistency.
Wait, if you consistently be inconsistent, then that is inconsistent with inconsistency, making it consistent, which makes it inconsistent, which makes it consistent... God damn it, it's an infinite loop!
Fortunately the founding fathers didn't use logic to convince the British there should be limits on govt. The British laughed at reason and evicence, and we don't teach the British arguments because they sound like what politician are saying today. Our rights are reduced to self-evident principles = simply what's obvious to me. Force/violence is the only instrument of govt and the only method to limit govt.
When I argue for anarchism, most of the time I only try to appeal to a person's desire to be consistent, even though I don't have any absolute proof for any particular ethical principles. People are also more likely to reject statist solutions if you describe the solutions in a blunt and emotionally volatile matter:
"You support violence? You are okay with a group of individuals(government) stealing for you? Are you willing to pull the trigger if I disagree with you?"
Think of a real example. How about civil rights? After the civil war, Jim Crow arose by small increments. I won't shoot you for disagreeing with me but I might if you kill my family. 1950s nonviolent protests achieved some results. But the day after Martin Luther King Jr was killed, race riots in a 100 cities achieved what peace could not. But segregation continues because noone wants to hang out with someone violent toward you. Can you imagine founding fathers fighting to remain part of Crown?
I agree. Eventually, there will have to be violence to stop the government in its tracks...but self-defense is not an option against a currently unstoppable force.
To be responsible for something is quite different to owing something (08:10). Sorry, but that seems barely an argument for me. The concept of property there also looks quite weak. I subscribed because of the "True News" video, but I think that, if I did understood well, this one isn't so "consistent". It'd be great if you make a video where formal concepts as "validity" aren't mixed up with things like "consistency". Take care and thanks anyway.
Little tricky, brain teaser. Proposition 2 is not true. Even my heart beat is irregular. Consistency is simply the negative of reality (inconsitency). The sun is consistently hot. On closer inspection...nope. 'Inconsistency is better' is not a truth statement but a subjective opinion. Is inconsistency subjective? objective? Help me out.
Contradictions do not exist in reality. Yes, the sun may not be consistently the same temperature but that's not a contradiction in reality. If the sun was able to have goals and its goal was to remain the same temperature then yes it would be acting in contradiction to this goal, but no where IN REALITY is there a reason why it must remain the exact same temperature (and thus no contradiction in reality).
"If a man says that the excercise of property rights is immoral - and he is exclusively using ANY property to make this argument, such as a telephone, a Webcan, a computer - or himself - his argument contradicts itself."
BLATANT tu quoque fallacy, you're more intelligent then this argument and you should know this!
my doctor says smoking is bad for you but he smokes so smoking must be good for you
I have to agree with revo, the truth of the statement is not dependant on the consistancy of the person making it. Because truth will still be truth regardless of how it is obtained. Not to say that the statement itself is true, but in order to disprove it... you need a better arguement.
LOl, okay let's say there are some circumstance where inconsistency is better than consistency. To apply inconsistency is to apply contradiction. If our stated goal is to be inconsistent for what ever situation, we must act in contradiction thus we must be also be consistent since doing this would result in us being in contradiction with our goal of being inconsistent.
If consistency is better, than we must be consistent
If inconsistency is better, then we STILL must be consistent.
I think what you are saying is that any true statement must always be consistent, even the statement, "inconsistency is better", which is why it cannot be true.
What I was trying to say was: It is impossible to act in contradiction(inconsistency) in a non-contradictory way (consistently). It just sounds ridiculous on so many levels. I can't believe I'm actually trying to argue this to all you cynics. You either get it or you don't.
You can put forth the opinion that it is sometimes better to be inconsistent. But you can't argue an opinion.
You certainly cannot, however, put forth a theory or a proposition that inconsistency is better than consistency; it would immediately contradict itself and would be impracticable.
Just a constructive criticism: you may want to consider getting to the point a little quicker if you want people to stick it out. As much as I wanted to hear what you had to say I couldn't bear with you through the rambling. The constant forays into what would be circular logic were mind numbing. I would suggest if you want to explain a topic dealing with logic, create a logic flow chart and just fire it off. People will get it or they will argue their differences. Interesting topic though.
I find the prelude to the argument helps lay the foundation, especially since it seems that the most valuable portion of the entire proposition is that "the principle of the argument includes the argument," and he goes on to help prove that, therein in many arguments, lies the contradiction in the form but not the content. I think it's important to discover that the reason it's hard for people to accept property rights is because we've been arguing incorrectly.
Stealing is justified by your definition of property rights. A thief controls what they steal or hopes to control what they steal. A thief will not steal what they can't control. My property is unique to me and of no use to any other. True property and the rights to it is in the uniqueness of this property. A thief can't control a car he can't start or move, he can't own it. Otherwise the thief obtains property. What I truly own can not be stolen from me by the government.
I disagree, randomness is useful. Or as you say being inconsistent. If you consistently try to put a bolt into a blind hole and miss, you will consistently miss the hole. Randomly placing the bolt into the hole will eventually work. Inconsistently putting the bolt into a hidden hole will be successful. Being consistent means you are unable to be creative. Creativity requires inconsistency.
My response to Shawn, If you define "ownership" as "responsibility" then I'm not sure where the contradiction lies in Stef's proof of property rights.
I think you're missing what is meant by self ownership and property ownership in those contexts...
It would have been better to bring up a rape scenario when talking about self ownership because self ownership has nothing to do with base biological function.
Also, an object need not be owned for it to be used. John Lennon could imagine this, I would hope that you could too if you gave it a bit more thought.
I respond to this video because it is likely the the things posited within it, when I ask questions regarding them, are likely to be answered by you or someone else commenting on this video. Would not ownership be defined mainly be use, occurrence and expectation?
If you logged into your account and made a video, and then never logged in ever again, people might post comments on the video, but they would never be answered by you.
Why can't someone start an argument, and then someone else finish it? Why is someone "responsible" for the argument, and what does it mean to be responsible for an/the argument?
A very good video. You've successfully proven that property rights exist. Bravo! And now I understand that I don't need government because I can just use reason to resolve my disputes! (as long as I limit my disputes to intellectual arguments with philosophers and scientists.)
Conditional statement: If nothing is true, then neither is that statement.
There's just one problem with the way that conditional works; the way it defeats the fact statement is reliant on the premise that the fact claim is already defeated
Very very good video. This is exactly what I've been saying for a long time (SO + Being the cause of the effects of our actions as the basis for property rights). Of course, I would still make a concession to the other side by saying I understand that rights, and particularly external property rights, to have efficacy, must be recognized in a social context, since they can be violated. They also require a CLAIM. The form of claim is debatable, with active use/workon/transformation being #1.
If government works properly it works to enforce the Nonagression principle and not to initiate force. And the fact that the ideal objectivist state has not yet been established, does not mean that it cannot be. Two points you never acknowledge.
"The right to life is the source of all rights - and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, not other rights are possible." Ayn Rand
Your justification of property rights is a bit long-winded. And "self-ownership" is a silly, redundant, useless phrase.
You also claim to be an anarchist. Property rights have no meaning without the force of law. The purpose of law is to place objective control over the RETALIATORY force that is government.
What exactly are "property rights" when it comes to land? In Scotland I believe that there is no "law of trespass." You are only accountable if you "damage the property"? In many ways this is a more appealing notion than one in which property ownership gives you some sort of absolute control over it. I mean, imagine a world where ALL property is "private property" and your rights to move around were curtailed.
After the asgaard had defeated the old rulers, the giants, they were faced with a problem. The giants had been defeated by the aasgards together with the rest of the people, and it had been declared that from now all people were free and equal!
But the aasgards wanted to rule the people and become rich. But how could they say that all people are free and equal, yet not free and equal? The aasgards asked the cunning trickster Locke to provide a solution to this dilemma.
RV56 9 months ago
The solution Locke came up with was this: The people being free and equal had voluntarily agreed to not be free and equal! The fact that the aasgards were rich and powerful and every day in control of the work of the rest of the people was the result of free agreements, and the bulk of these agreements had been met in ancient times that no body remember.
RV56 9 months ago
@RV56 "The fact that the aasgards were rich and powerful and every day in control of the work of the rest of the people was the result of free agreements"
If that's what each individual person wanted, and they did it under no duress or coercion, then there's no problem. Ask a masochist why they voluntarily choose to be dominated and abused. The only problem comes when that directive is enforced on subsequent generations who did not consent. I.E. the social contract.
Dirge987 9 months ago
I don't agree with the idea of self-ownership. I don't own my body, I am my body.
RV56 10 months ago
@RV56 You are not a body.....you have a body. you also have a mind but you are not that either.
Energy is what you are!
TheObserver2012 10 months ago
@RV56 But then you are just arguing over semantics. Self-ownership might not be the best of terms, because you cannot "own" something you cannot vacate, and since you cannot vacate your body, you technically can't "own" it. However you do not disagree with the principal of self ownership, which can be described as body autonomy, or personal sovereignty. Those terms have nearly identical definitions and principals, however self-ownership is easier to understand to the layperson.
Dirge987 9 months ago
@Dirge987 No, it is not just semantics. If I own my body, it is something that I can trade. If I am my body, that would be called slavery. And I belive it is slavery when I sell my body to an employer. I am against the whole idea of employing people, for me it is slavery. If we were truly free we would join free associations, but we would not sell ourselves. If you sell yourself, you are not free. You do so because you need to. Because you cant reproduce using your own labour on your own terms.
RV56 9 months ago
@RV56 But you are taking voluntary trade, and aggressive slavery and making it the same thing. It's like saying having consensual sex and committing rape are the same thing when they're not.
Because I own my body and my time, I have the ability to sell my body and my time voluntarily, and that's what I do by working. If the trade between my labor and money were not worth it for me, if I could find something better somewhere else, I would.
Dirge987 9 months ago
Good video, and I mostly agree with you, there's just one thing.
When you make the argument that we own ourself because we control ourself when we use the argument that we, either own ourself or not, you are arguing that we control ourself, not that we own ourself. Since there is a difference between legitimate ownership and simple control, that argument doesn't say anything about property rights over ones own body, merely that we control ourself, which is a scientific fact, not a moral value.
LibertyOfExpression 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LibertyOfExpression "there is a difference between legitimate ownership and simple control,"
Yes. Stephs' argument here fails to distinguish between use/possession and ownership. That's a serious problem imo. I just made a video response that talks about this.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@LibertyOfExpression I've thought about this before, and this is the conclusion I came to. Because your brain can control your body without the use of force as a natural biological process, and since no other brain or body can control you without the use of force, your brain/consciousness therefore have legitimate ownership over your body.
Dirge987 9 months ago
Turds Have MORE RIGHTS than humans. When you see a Turd on the pavement you show the Turd Respect and step aside, when you see an human you just step right over them and stamp them out like a butt-end from your cigarette. The argument for human rights does not exist. It's to late for that now, The Military Own Us. And They Will Do As They Have Allways Done.Treat us like butt-ends.
nicolson100 1 year ago
Just because you build a house you think you own it? All of the earth's resources are the common inheritage of the world's creatures, what makes you think you can assemble them in a construction and refuse everyone else the right to use them?
Your property is your body, nothing else.
GoreTuzkPT 1 year ago
@stefbot So is it logically inconsistent to use public roads whilst arguing against them?
CaledoniaProductions 1 year ago
z0mgoodness, how can you have morality without gremlins?
drew335533 1 year ago
i know this isn't going to mean much for your sapient highness since you eliminated any possibility of accepting an answer by that last argument that i am arguing against self ownership by writing this but... how many times do people have to tell «anarcho-capitalists», people like proudhon make the distinction between property that is exploiting and posession... a webcam is posession, a factory is property.proving «self-ownership» doesn't lead to proving you can own a mean of production
GuiMarquito 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All property belongs to the State. You have no right to a JURY TRIALl anymore that is why propety taxes keep growing in number and amounts. This right was taken away, by a JUDGE who has no power to make LAW. Don't believe me, contact your District Attorney, he/she will tell you that when is comes to property taxes you are not entitled to a JURY TRIAL as ruled by Case bla bla . Get your heads out of your ??? and support a real freedom movement, join us now. propertyrightsnow@yahoo.com
propertyrightsnow 1 year ago
If someone says that self-ownership is invalid he is exercising self-management.
If someone says property is theft, he is making distinction between exploitative private property and personal possessions.
Grindermetalhead 1 year ago
On wikipedia this is called the 'Performative contradiction'
alalelalex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here you go, Stephan Molyneux, I'm doing you a favour and posting a link that may help you begin to understand the real issue of property:
mutualist.blogspot . com/2005/01/r-wilson-on-property.html
Heller86 1 year ago
This is the first time I disagree with you
ZorrisPorris 1 year ago
Stephan, you have immensly disappointed me. I've watched many of your videos and have appreciated your work very much until I saw this one. I cannot start explaining on how many levels you're simply wrong. This video contains so many logical fallacies I'd need an entire book to refute them (and I can do that if I had the time and patience). To top it all, your misunderstanding of Proudhon's theory is just shameful. It's clear you never seriously studied a word he wrote.
Heller86 1 year ago
WTF? CHATTER
alphafirstoneyou 1 year ago
I don't get what the whole problem with property rights are. You own your brain, therefore you own your arms and your labor, which can be transferred into purchasing power (money) and transfered into land. It comes pretty damn naturally and is very consistent as far as i know and also empirical.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
I am responsible for producing this comment, does that mean I have the right to bitchslap anybody who deletes it?
GyroCoder 1 year ago
That would be just be silly... the same way it would be silly to shoot someone for stepping on your lawn.
ExquisiteDoom 1 year ago
When you say that you must consistently apply the inconsistency rule, all your saying is that inconsistency is inconsistent.
sharperguy 2 years ago
Have you changed your position on property rights? I agree with Marc Stevens that rights are a legal claim.
A thief forces you to wax his car. He stole your time and energy. He forced you to contract under duress. Now he must perform - give consideration. You decide how much the bill is.
Rights are product of reason and exist by contract. Try to get a bee, rattle snake or grizzly bear to contract.
Non initiation of force principle is the victim decides the bill as a right by contract.
zonsb 2 years ago
I really enjoyed the video. God bless.
benhuey 2 years ago
i too call equivocation.
"i own the house that i built" is correct in one sense of the word "own" that you used. that is, that you are the person who actually built the house (just as that guy was the one who "owned the argument" because he was the one who actually argued)
It would be strange to say that you didn't build the house.
But it does make sense to say that you now have sole rights to the uses of the house, which is the other definition of ownership that you didn't argue for.
absurdmike 2 years ago
Is it possible that by relieving individuals of responsibility for their actions, the government has the basis for taking all our property rights?
licmareng 2 years ago
provide other work to their community. They might work at the watch factory, and they might work somewhere else useful to the community. If they are unable to do useful work for the community due to physical or mental disabilities they are relieved by the community and cared for. Otherwise they have to work or otherwise can fuck off and die, so to speak. So you can not argue that property rights can never be abolished and replaced for other forms of possession. Possession based on use. (2)
DennisDuine 2 years ago
Well don't anarchists usually argue (I consider myself anarcho-communists) that there's a difference between property and possession? That there are different forms of possession.,, So your watch is your possession because you use it for yourself and everybody else has a right to have a watch, but the watch factory is collectively owned by the community and the watches distributed among the members of that community according to their needs. The members of this community in their turn (1)
DennisDuine 2 years ago
Seems, to me, that watches are the product of someone's labor, so if that person produces a watch, and it is taken from him to give to someone else according to that person's "needs" without giving the producer something equally of value (to him), then it is theft. When he gets tired of that sort of thing, he will quit producing unless he is coerced to continue, which is, of course, slavery. I don't do sports, but money is taken from me to build a sports arena: boils down to slavery.
ysgeye 2 years ago
It is not self contradicting to argue that property rights are injust with the use of objects that are someone's property.
If it were, then it would also be self contradictory to argue that the notion 'state' is injust, if you are a citizen of a country with a state.
Using elements in your current but unwanted situation to get yourself to another (more preferable) situation is not selfcontradictory. It seems to me that doing nothing about an unwanted situation is self contradictory.
MrMincer 2 years ago 2
i was about to write to the same effect and saw that you did for me =)
absurdmike 2 years ago
This is so great really, and I never really noticed it before.
What we do is, we take something with a common definition (self-ownership), then give it a non-standard definition (body control). Then after I have accepted the non-standard definition, we agree that it is true.
(continued)
Sepero1 2 years ago
And last, slide in all the stuff that comes in with the standard definition (ownership/property rights), and not the things that follow from the proposed definition (all animals control their body).
Let me try-
I say that God is everything that exists: you, me, the trees, etc.
Since God is everything, then we must agree that God exists.
Since God exists then it is only reasonable that we worship and praise the ultimate being of the universe.
Sepero1 2 years ago
A perfect statement: The truth is not logical :p
dinkolino2 2 years ago
lets play a bit more..
we take "there is no such thing as truth"
. If this is true, than the statement is false, which makes it true :)). Alice in Wunderland kind of stuff. Or if you will, time-travel kind of problem. One could say therefore that this statement is completely false because, or that it is completely true, because, obviously, it always produces a truthful conclusion as much as it produces a false conclusion.. where do you go from here?
dinkolino2 2 years ago
ment to say, because it always produces a false result, as well as the truth. But then again, what is truth?
dinkolino2 2 years ago
wiht all due respect, this is a bullshit debate, which ofcourse it is because it is based primarily on the play of words and not the content for which they should stand. All the statements made here and shown to be self-contradictory can be reformulated in a way that they no longer are and will still mean the same thing to 99% of the people. Logic as a scientific discipline is imperfect because it relies on the language which is imperfect, but it assumes that it is perfect.
dinkolino2 2 years ago
you're using a logical argument to argue against logic, you might want to try again... :)
stefbot 2 years ago 30
haha, ok. Is there form without the content?
dinkolino2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have you changed your position on property rights? I agree with Marc Stevens that rights are a legal claim.
A thief forces you to wax his car. He stole your time and energy. He forced you to contract under duress. Now he must perform - give consideration. You decide how much the bill is.
Rights are product of reason and exist by contract. Try to get a bee, rattle snake or grizzly bear to contract.
Non initiation of force principle is the victim decides the bill as a right by contract.
zonsb 2 years ago
@stefbot
*Gives Stefan cake* :)
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@stefbot Logic is irrelevant. All that matters is if the argument convinces. Your argument is unconvincing. You have not natural rights. You have no entitlement or inheritance of rights. If you want something, you have to earn it, take it, and achieve it yourself. No one will do it for you. Take responsibility for yourself. Protect your own possessions.
People who expect to be granted rights are infantile. The concept of inalienable rights are part of what the State/hierarchy is founded upon.
landgabriel 1 year ago
@landgabriel Your comment implies we have no Rights. The philosophical foundation to: Locke, Hobbes and Jefferson’s work materializes when using science to investigate our unalienable Rights are from the Laws of Nature. It becomes clear these Rights apply to all Life, from bacteria to humans, and Social systems, including Charles Darwin’s research; as in some Grand Unification principle for all Living-systems. See my channel video for the proof.
Mike10four 1 year ago
@Mike10four What laws? There are no such laws. They are only of your own creation. All these words, 'bacteria' etc have no meaning unless I consent to them having meaning. You can not force my consent.
And you have no rights that I do not agree to you having.
landgabriel 1 year ago
@landgabriel You need to see my two part channel video to get on the same page.
Mike10four 1 year ago
@Mike10four No video you could ever create can prove that we have inherent rights. Your belief in them is akin to the belief in god or in government.
landgabriel 11 months ago
@landgabriel Have you seen my 2 part channel video?
Mike10four 11 months ago
You may say these things were "traded," but who granted "ownership" to the things that were bought? The reality is that it is the workers of the world who have made everything by their own actions. But the surplus value produced in the labor process is taken from the worker by the capitalist under duress. Capitalism is founded upon force and violence. Also, where does one draw the line between "mores" and "laws"? How strong does social organization have to be before a more is a law?
FlamingHound 3 years ago
So you are exclusively using your computer as property to argue against the validity of property rights -- you might want to take another run at that one... :)
stefbot 3 years ago 8
i am a bit curious, are you german, stefan? i seem to hear a bit of an accent,. if so, you should also do your stuff in german, god knows germans need it badly
dinkolino2 2 years ago
To address your starting argument: "one should look at the form and not the content", I would like to point that the form does not exist without the content, or rather the form is only a way of expressing the content. The two are inseparable. Form can not exist without the content or vice versa. So by your own standards the statement is self contradictory. It can be used however, to express certain views or perceived truths, which invalidates your starting argument, if u know what i mean :)
dinkolino2 2 years ago
@stefbot Stephan, read Proudhon's book "What is property". READ IT EARNESTLY. You're confusing the two very different meanings of the word 'property' and use it as if they were the same. Until you realize this crucial distinction you can only keep talking nonsense. No offence, but that's what it is.
Heller86 1 year ago
@stefbot this is the strawman fallacy you're using. You need to stop being a faggot and watch my video about property rights. I spoke with your mother, she says you're a faggot too.
FaceOfChangeXIII 1 year ago
@stefbot I'm sorry, stefbot, I was very rude to you just now, and I regret my actions. I'm hoping my video about property rights will appeal to your wish to eliminate self-comtradictory statements. Its the comments section, we all tend to do things for effect here (even your comments, man ;-) )
FaceOfChangeXIII 1 year ago
computers were created by capitalism. and since its bad then i guess your not allowed to use them right?
therackjackets 3 years ago
@FlamingHound Marxist alienation theory? I didn't know anyone still believed that nonsense, since Marx's labor theory of value upon which it rests has been thoroughly shot down by the neo-classicals. No self-respecting economist/theorist would defend labor theory of value today.
epilp88 1 year ago
@epilp88 WRONG, Labour theory of value is alive and well more than ever. I suggest reading the book "Studies in Mutualist Political Economy" by Kevin Carson - he offers a very convincing refutation of the theory's critique.
Heller86 1 year ago
@Heller86 I don't doubt there are still chumps peddling labor theory of value, I just don't understand why anyone would waste their time with such nonsense given the last 140 years of development in economic theory.
epilp88 1 year ago
@epilp88 You won't get away from a serious discussion by saying "you're views are nonsense". Read Kevin Carson's book - he's very much aware of the 140 years of development in economic thought and he nontheless manages to effectively refute the so-called refutations of labour theory of value (while incorporating some other elements of modern economy, especially the Austrian school).
Heller86 1 year ago
Peddle sophistry much? It's pretty easy to pop his bubble with two simple realities: (1)"Property/ownership" is relative and subjective. (2) Nobody builds anything by "their own actions" alone. Did the "builder" build the land on which the house sits? Did s/he cut the timber and mill it? Did s/he forge the steel and cast them into nails, hammers, etc? Further, what separates the "builder" from everything else? Nothing. There is no invisible dividing line. The separation is conceptual only.
FlamingHound 3 years ago 2
I could claim that you can't do anything at all unless you are alive as you are using the fact that you are alive to do anything else. Therefore, you should steal food and medicine to keep yourself alive when you need to, violating property rights. What's your answer?
hara001 3 years ago
well, talk to a charity instead of stealing, since involves a contradictory set of ethics - see my free book on ethics, on my web site :)
stefbot 3 years ago 2
Well, the way I see it, is that you would have to prove that all of the ethics rules (no steal, no killing, etc) have equal priorities. But it feels a lot like life has a much higher priority than anything else. For example, if property can be violated, you can still live. However, if living is impossible, then you cannot own property. This tells me that life is much so more fundamental than property that it justify the violation of property when life is in danger. And I have the proof:
hara001 3 years ago
The proof is self defense. According to you, you own your body as it is your property and yours alone. However, when your life is in danger, you have the right to kill the attacker, destroying his body property to protect yours. This proves that life is higher than property as it is justified to destroy property in order to protect life, in self defense. And if it is justify to kill others to save life, then surely it is justified to steal food to do the same, as the crime is smaller.
hara001 3 years ago
A case in point would be someone claiming "Statism is dead", no?
67jkey 3 years ago
well it is dead in the sense of globalization. thats what steff is implying. he even argues that because nations dont really exist and now that people comprehend that idea it has killed that idea. but i mean its sort of debatable on some level. but the state is imaginary than it was never alive idk lmao
therackjackets 3 years ago
everything is relative...haha!
dowapbambutt 3 years ago
Arguments are best made through hand puppets.
:D
stealthswimmer 3 years ago
Amazing... I tried to prove your property rights video was flawed by responding to your video to other people. I learned that it was futile debating your content with a random person that doesnt own your content. i mostly got blank stares or no response. My conclusion: it is safe to know that you own yourself and the effects of your actions. Great video... 5 stars.
jxwhit8 3 years ago
vktrsx, you're pretending that you're smarter than everyone, that you've heard it all before, and it's not worth your time to address Stefan's points on the merits. This is not healthy behavior, and often stems from personality problems (grandiosity and vanity) arising from belittling abuse suffered at the hands of a domineering parent. Instead, please use your intellectual gifts to describe what you think is the correct philosophy, rather than offer empty, self-aggrandizing attacks.
obiwan3257 3 years ago
I stopped it after you said it wouldn't be based on gods, govs, gremlins, etc., because I can't bear to hear what's coming (I'll be shocked if I'm wrong):
Your so-called "private property rights" are derived from a different gremlin called "self-ownership," which is essentially the premise that you are like the little alien from Men In Black who piloted the human robot from inside the head. "You" live up there; "your" body is just a machine you pilot.
From there it's a rehash of Locke.
Close?
vktrsx 3 years ago
Oh, and "nothing is certain" isn't a self-contradictory statement. If the argument applies to itself, then the argument *might* be true. It might be false, too. But that doesn't mean it's automatically false.
vezrig 3 years ago
This argument is ludicrous. You secretly bundled several concepts in the word "ownership," proved that one of these concepts applies to the self & actions, and therefore all the other concepts in the word "ownership" apply as well. It's blatant equivocation, and you should be ashamed.
vezrig 3 years ago
I think I understand what you mean - "Thinking is very hard, and logical rebuttals are complicated, so I'm just going to make pompous assertions!" Thanks for your input, I like ice cream! :)
stefbot 3 years ago
Oh, I'm not the one making pompous assertions here. You committed logical fallacies, and I pointed some of them out. That's *so* much more pompous than "I'm saving absolutist morality from gods and governments!"
vezrig 3 years ago
I like the use of *so* here. I think it really drives the point home. Sort of like sooooooo.....you can almost hear the swing sets squeaking in the background.
Still no arguments set forth, but the statements are more colorful for sure. ;)
jimdalejr 3 years ago
I have put forth an argument - that Stefan is engaging in equivocation. He's equivocating responsibility with the right to exclude.
vezrig 3 years ago
ah, if only saying it made it so...
stefbot 3 years ago
Totally oversimplified argument you've got there. Keep preaching to your choir, by all means.
Skobrin 3 years ago
What a retarded non-rebuttal.
stefbot 3 years ago
You've taken the phrase "property is theft" WAAAY out of context here (unintentionally I hope). Proudhon also said: "property is liberty" and "property is freedom" But you don't hear that quoted as often do you
Applied IN-CONTEXT the age-old whole "Performative Contradiction" argument (which originated from Marx) falls apart
Proudhon meant: the right of individuals to use and abused property disconnected from use so long as the owner submits to state-sanctioned property titles was illegitimate
LaughingMan0X 3 years ago
This proves only Property Rights in that which is the product of human labour. Land is not the product of human labour therefore the case for Property Rights in land is not proven. This is no justfication for property rights in land. Working a piece of by the application of labour does not "mix" labour with the land. The two can always be kept separate. Land acquires a value by the presence and action of the community.
henrybn14ar 3 years ago
There's enough lands on earth for every individuals, so why go through the hassle of having is community-owned, ever heard of the tragedy of the commons?
CorrosionX3 3 years ago
I will have an acre in the middle of the City of London. You can have an acre of heather moor in the north of Scotland. That's a fair distribution, is it not?
Who is talking about community ownership of land? Who needs ownership of land anyway? Who needs more than the right of secure and undisturbed occupation?
henrybn14ar 3 years ago
Business people need ownership of land.
If I am going to invest a million dollars of other people's money (investors) into a piece of land, then I want to be good and sure I own that land. Otherwise it would be like building you a mansion.
Study some history of industrialization, particularly Taiwan and Hong Kong. Property rights (in land) are absolutely foundational to the formation of a middle class. Absolutely foundational.
Individualism101 3 years ago
Business people do not need absolute ownership of land. They need the assured right of continued occupation.
In Hong Kong all land is owned by the state and is leased. It has thrived on this system as the government has ample revenue without having to impose high taxes labour. If I recall correctly, Taiwan operates under a system of land value taxation which has a similar effect. If what you said was true, nobody would ever invest on leasehold land.
henrybn14ar 3 years ago
Let's say I build a house on some land. The only way you can build something else on top of that land is if you fuck up my house and thus would be violating my property rights. Right to own land is not a required to own property and to keep property secured in a certain place.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
Exactly. All you need is a title deed to define the site boundary and legislation to protect your right to occupy the site.
henrybn14ar 3 years ago
Well no duh. Of course if the majority doesnt't believe in property rights it is pointless to be claiming you have those rights, just as you cannot have anarchism if the majority does not believe in anarchism. No one should be denying that you have to convince society to protect those rights. Argueing that rights should be accepted by society is not the same thing as majoritarianism, rights come FROM the larger part of society.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
Yes precisely so. Legislation is the formal expression of those ideas that are generally accepted.
henrybn14ar 3 years ago
Did anyone else suddenly realize that Stefan isn't real. I propose to you that we have in fact just watched a video arguing that he exists created by a computer in order to prove we're gullible!
The computer is clearly attempting to prove Stefan is real through logical argument which will in turn create a paradox and destroy the world. Beware!
Btw, you don't own your body, if you did there'd be no drug testing. Drug testing is self reinforcing proof that you're government property. The end. :)
serialsoft 3 years ago 2
Ofcourse their are some things that can not be described by language, including this comment, their by this comment can not be read and you are imagining reading
Ofcourse their are some things that can not be described by language, including this comment, their by this comment can not be read and you are imagining,
lionessimba 3 years ago
the statement "I own my body" implies that you and your body are separate things; a ghost in a shell view if you will. statements like "i control my body" also imply that the body needs to be controlled by some force outside of laws of physics. there is no "I own my body" or "i control my body" there is simply "this body performed this action" according to natural forces (physics).
james007m 3 years ago
"form" over a "quagmire of content" is like style over substance. is it worth winning a debate if we lose information in the process?
ps. the metaphor of "building a house, so you own it" only works under assunption that not only are all materials "yours" to begin with, but that the land where you build is yours as well, which is as much yours as air.
you may argue that you work the land, but i put in more hours than the financiers of the university i work at and i own nothing there
sleeplessmind 3 years ago
"so you own it" only works under assunption that not only are all materials "yours" to begin with"
What Stef said was you own the effects of your actions. Yes, you clearly can't own UNMOLDED land since that kind of land is not an effect of your actions. Also, the ability to own land is not required to build a house (an effect of your actions). I made a comment on this channel a couple days ago explaining why.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
What about intellectual property? I don't know if you've spoken about it (I haven't heard many of your podcasts), but I would be interested to see what you have to say. (I, myself, am quite staunchly opposed to intellectual property.)
doucher337 3 years ago
Do you own that comment you made there?
If you say you do, then are allready accepting the validity of intellectual property. (Well, AT LEAST that what you actually created....not just simply what you discovered)
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
adorianvlad-- there are many real world examples like that. 1 bucket of sand + 1/2 bucket mortar (powder) + water = 1 bucket mortar. What appears logical is often not true. But 1 bucket sand + 1/2 bucket sand = 1.5 buckets sand. Both equations are consistent relative to the context or hidden process. But on their face they appear to inconsistent.
1manstruth 3 years ago
Can we find two things which are identical to each other ? Perhaps so, but we cannot put them together (due to Pauli Exclusion Principle). If they are not being placed together, we need to measure them separately to make sure that they are identical, but now we have the problem of Uncertainty Principle. As a last resort, you may take out a ruler and say, "OK this is the standard ruler and all length units should be based on it." We know that the length of this ruler will change according to
adorianvlad 3 years ago
different temperatures. The space itself may also change depending on gravitation.
As a conclusion, there is no empirical proof that "1+1=2" is a physical reality. It is very likely that this axiom, together with many other similar axioms, are mere illusions produced by neural activities. Unfortunately, most scientific theories are based on this inaccurate premise. The implication is profound.
Reference
Parigi, V., Zavatta, A., Kim, M.S. & Bellini, M. (2007)Probing Quantum Commutation Rules
adorianvlad 3 years ago
You may be argueing that our senses may not be valid but by the act of you argueing with us on youtube it is very clear to me that you do not believe that your senses are not valid. Then why are you argueing with us as though we are true? You could just simply "will away" our annoying babbling since we are nothing more than subjective characters in your mind. It is retarded to be argueing with characters in your mind about who their master is. Just show them.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
What?!
Where did I say something like that?
I don't reckon saying anything even a tiny bit close to it.
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Well, you qouted a guy who thought it was a shame for people to accept "1+1=2". You did not critisize him so what is implied there is
1:You want us to reject our senses when they tell us 1+1=2 is true in the real world
2:Because of the fact you are argueing with us on youtube as though your senses are valid, you clearly do not believe that one should reject his/her senses.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
Now tell me adorian, what is the point in argueing for something you do not believe in? Could it be because of a need to exploit other people?
What's more likely? A universe we have no evidence of where falsehood = truth
or
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
is the universe, logical, empiracle, as we see through the senses in fact true?
Trust your senses. Government, God, Culture are the rejection of the senses.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
Well, God, Government, has been portrayed as being fictive or such, by stef, isn't it?
We may extrapolate from my above argument that eventually everything has just an axiomatic substrate.
Humans cannot prove anything whatsoever that it is true. I am not suggesting that everything is an illusion, only that everything is presumed to be contrived with a degree of surety, the bottom line being an axiomatic view upon the whole world.
Government and Religions should be then DISREGARDED peculiarly?
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Yeah, and to sound even more weird, regarding my comments in this video, 1+1=2, it is not always true; imagine 2 cups half-filled with 2 different substances that react with each other in a manner I believe its called endothermic reactions, when the result solution in volume, is less then the sum of each initial volumes. Nevermind the other examples, when 1 plus 1 in other bases (apart from 10) doesn't equal 2. All I'm trying to say here, folks, is that from theory to practice is a big leap...
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Well your argument that consistency must be better than inconsistency was a bit weak so I can't say whether I agree or not. Your second claim that "If inconsistency is better than consistency then you must consistently apply a rule called inconsistency." is just false. You very well could inconsistently apply a rule of inconsistency. That fact that either way you have to sometimes be consistent just proves that you don't always get what you want. Nice try though, and happy new year.
pseudonous 3 years ago
And how would you know that your inconsistent rule was inconsistent? Compared to what?
stefbot 3 years ago
Well I suppose the simple answer is that it takes effort to be consistent otherwise you wouldn't need to discuss self detonating arguments and such.
Truly though, you need to elaborate on why it is even relevant that I know my rule of inconsistency is inconsistent. "Compared to what?" is exactly right! I don't know but I suspect this line of questioning is only important if you first accept consistency is better than inconsistency.
pseudonous 3 years ago
On further thought, I think all you can really say is that, 'If we are to engage in reasonable debate we need to accept consistency.' However, this isn't the same as saying that consistency is better than inconsistency.
pseudonous 3 years ago
Wait, if you consistently be inconsistent, then that is inconsistent with inconsistency, making it consistent, which makes it inconsistent, which makes it consistent... God damn it, it's an infinite loop!
ufee 3 years ago
This example has the same problems as the issue of "nothing is true"(explained above in my comment).
you say:
presumed statement:"if you consistently are inconsistent"
then the next conditional "inconsistent with inconsistency" is true, etc
your PREMISE is that "consistently X is inconsistent" but this is NOT a FACT, thus its a presumption
furthermore, the conditional statement:"X is inconsistent with inconsistency",
is based on the above premise, thus X is not implied as being true etc
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Oh, come on.
ufee 3 years ago
well, you've asked for it! ha!ha!
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Fortunately the founding fathers didn't use logic to convince the British there should be limits on govt. The British laughed at reason and evicence, and we don't teach the British arguments because they sound like what politician are saying today. Our rights are reduced to self-evident principles = simply what's obvious to me. Force/violence is the only instrument of govt and the only method to limit govt.
1manstruth 3 years ago
When I argue for anarchism, most of the time I only try to appeal to a person's desire to be consistent, even though I don't have any absolute proof for any particular ethical principles. People are also more likely to reject statist solutions if you describe the solutions in a blunt and emotionally volatile matter:
"You support violence? You are okay with a group of individuals(government) stealing for you? Are you willing to pull the trigger if I disagree with you?"
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
Think of a real example. How about civil rights? After the civil war, Jim Crow arose by small increments. I won't shoot you for disagreeing with me but I might if you kill my family. 1950s nonviolent protests achieved some results. But the day after Martin Luther King Jr was killed, race riots in a 100 cities achieved what peace could not. But segregation continues because noone wants to hang out with someone violent toward you. Can you imagine founding fathers fighting to remain part of Crown?
1manstruth 3 years ago
I agree. Eventually, there will have to be violence to stop the government in its tracks...but self-defense is not an option against a currently unstoppable force.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
To be responsible for something is quite different to owing something (08:10). Sorry, but that seems barely an argument for me. The concept of property there also looks quite weak. I subscribed because of the "True News" video, but I think that, if I did understood well, this one isn't so "consistent". It'd be great if you make a video where formal concepts as "validity" aren't mixed up with things like "consistency". Take care and thanks anyway.
code933k 3 years ago
1. IF (a)inconsistency is (b) consistent
2. AND (c) I am (b) consistent
3. THEREFORE (a) inconsistent am (c) I.
Little tricky, brain teaser. Proposition 2 is not true. Even my heart beat is irregular. Consistency is simply the negative of reality (inconsitency). The sun is consistently hot. On closer inspection...nope. 'Inconsistency is better' is not a truth statement but a subjective opinion. Is inconsistency subjective? objective? Help me out.
1manstruth 3 years ago
Contradictions do not exist in reality. Yes, the sun may not be consistently the same temperature but that's not a contradiction in reality. If the sun was able to have goals and its goal was to remain the same temperature then yes it would be acting in contradiction to this goal, but no where IN REALITY is there a reason why it must remain the exact same temperature (and thus no contradiction in reality).
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
"If a man says that the excercise of property rights is immoral - and he is exclusively using ANY property to make this argument, such as a telephone, a Webcan, a computer - or himself - his argument contradicts itself."
BLATANT tu quoque fallacy, you're more intelligent then this argument and you should know this!
my doctor says smoking is bad for you but he smokes so smoking must be good for you
GARBAGE
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
I have to agree with revo, the truth of the statement is not dependant on the consistancy of the person making it. Because truth will still be truth regardless of how it is obtained. Not to say that the statement itself is true, but in order to disprove it... you need a better arguement.
Cougar604 3 years ago
Ethics is not cancer.
stefbot 3 years ago
I doubt anybody would care to seriously contest that, Stef. What are you getting at?
RussellsParadox 3 years ago
it's still a tu quoque and it's also a strawman:
you have leaped from "property rights are unethical" to "use of property is unethical"
I enjoy some of your videos but these arguments are terrible!
I'm not even advocating abolition of property rights either, but if you're going to claim to prove they exist you have to do better then this!
I believe as an anarchist that you're only entitled to as much property as others generally acknowledge is yours, otherwise I'd be a libertarian
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
ok I study philosophy your first argument is terribly flawed and comes down to:
P - Consistency is better than consistency in one circumstance
C - Consistency is better than inconsistency in all circumstances
it's not true, there are times when it is better to be inconsistent
RevolutionaryJam 3 years ago
...and is it consistently better to be inconsistent? Keep studying. :)
stefbot 3 years ago
I will keep studying Stef. I hope to one day be as good as you are at dishing out strawman arguments.:)
anarch0atheist 3 years ago
I think you're there.
stefbot 3 years ago
You really think so? Well I owe it all to you. Thanks Stefbot!
anarch0atheist 3 years ago
LOl, okay let's say there are some circumstance where inconsistency is better than consistency. To apply inconsistency is to apply contradiction. If our stated goal is to be inconsistent for what ever situation, we must act in contradiction thus we must be also be consistent since doing this would result in us being in contradiction with our goal of being inconsistent.
If consistency is better, than we must be consistent
If inconsistency is better, then we STILL must be consistent.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
I think what you are saying is that any true statement must always be consistent, even the statement, "inconsistency is better", which is why it cannot be true.
Starowicz 3 years ago
What I was trying to say was: It is impossible to act in contradiction(inconsistency) in a non-contradictory way (consistently). It just sounds ridiculous on so many levels. I can't believe I'm actually trying to argue this to all you cynics. You either get it or you don't.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
You can put forth the opinion that it is sometimes better to be inconsistent. But you can't argue an opinion.
You certainly cannot, however, put forth a theory or a proposition that inconsistency is better than consistency; it would immediately contradict itself and would be impracticable.
ForOrAgainstUs 3 years ago
Just a constructive criticism: you may want to consider getting to the point a little quicker if you want people to stick it out. As much as I wanted to hear what you had to say I couldn't bear with you through the rambling. The constant forays into what would be circular logic were mind numbing. I would suggest if you want to explain a topic dealing with logic, create a logic flow chart and just fire it off. People will get it or they will argue their differences. Interesting topic though.
VoteLib3rty 3 years ago
This isn't actually a response:
I find the prelude to the argument helps lay the foundation, especially since it seems that the most valuable portion of the entire proposition is that "the principle of the argument includes the argument," and he goes on to help prove that, therein in many arguments, lies the contradiction in the form but not the content. I think it's important to discover that the reason it's hard for people to accept property rights is because we've been arguing incorrectly.
ForOrAgainstUs 3 years ago
Stealing is justified by your definition of property rights. A thief controls what they steal or hopes to control what they steal. A thief will not steal what they can't control. My property is unique to me and of no use to any other. True property and the rights to it is in the uniqueness of this property. A thief can't control a car he can't start or move, he can't own it. Otherwise the thief obtains property. What I truly own can not be stolen from me by the government.
ZullGostnu 3 years ago
I disagree, randomness is useful. Or as you say being inconsistent. If you consistently try to put a bolt into a blind hole and miss, you will consistently miss the hole. Randomly placing the bolt into the hole will eventually work. Inconsistently putting the bolt into a hidden hole will be successful. Being consistent means you are unable to be creative. Creativity requires inconsistency.
ZullGostnu 3 years ago
I like to think I'm in I philosophy and social studies class and you are my professor.
:o)
nkosmach 3 years ago
This is Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics, is it not?
nibbler491 3 years ago
Similar yeah.
lukeev 3 years ago
i fail, i will read the description before posting comments next time, lol!
kyoobeh 3 years ago
Hey, Stefbot.
fix the date, it says 2008 :P
kyoobeh 3 years ago
My response to Shawn, If you define "ownership" as "responsibility" then I'm not sure where the contradiction lies in Stef's proof of property rights.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
I think you're missing what is meant by self ownership and property ownership in those contexts...
It would have been better to bring up a rape scenario when talking about self ownership because self ownership has nothing to do with base biological function.
Also, an object need not be owned for it to be used. John Lennon could imagine this, I would hope that you could too if you gave it a bit more thought.
someweirdgayguy 3 years ago
I respond to this video because it is likely the the things posited within it, when I ask questions regarding them, are likely to be answered by you or someone else commenting on this video. Would not ownership be defined mainly be use, occurrence and expectation?
If you logged into your account and made a video, and then never logged in ever again, people might post comments on the video, but they would never be answered by you.
SomethingSeaAgain 3 years ago
Suppose you make a house that you abandoned and that no-one ever lived in? What of that?
SomethingSeaAgain 3 years ago
What is it "to own"?
SomethingSeaAgain 3 years ago
Why can't someone start an argument, and then someone else finish it? Why is someone "responsible" for the argument, and what does it mean to be responsible for an/the argument?
SomethingSeaAgain 3 years ago
What if that woman Does answer for him, or/and what if he doesn't mind that you have continued the debate with her?
SomethingSeaAgain 3 years ago
Is "exercising control over the body", "ownership" of that same body?
SomethingSeaAgain 3 years ago
A very good video. You've successfully proven that property rights exist. Bravo! And now I understand that I don't need government because I can just use reason to resolve my disputes! (as long as I limit my disputes to intellectual arguments with philosophers and scientists.)
good4usoul 3 years ago
"Nothing is true, and everything is permitted."
Fact statement: Nothing is true
Conditional statement: If nothing is true, then neither is that statement.
There's just one problem with the way that conditional works; the way it defeats the fact statement is reliant on the premise that the fact claim is already defeated
adorianvlad 3 years ago
Very very good video. This is exactly what I've been saying for a long time (SO + Being the cause of the effects of our actions as the basis for property rights). Of course, I would still make a concession to the other side by saying I understand that rights, and particularly external property rights, to have efficacy, must be recognized in a social context, since they can be violated. They also require a CLAIM. The form of claim is debatable, with active use/workon/transformation being #1.
dakshinamurti 3 years ago
If government works properly it works to enforce the Nonagression principle and not to initiate force. And the fact that the ideal objectivist state has not yet been established, does not mean that it cannot be. Two points you never acknowledge.
apluce21 3 years ago
"The right to life is the source of all rights - and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, not other rights are possible." Ayn Rand
Your justification of property rights is a bit long-winded. And "self-ownership" is a silly, redundant, useless phrase.
You also claim to be an anarchist. Property rights have no meaning without the force of law. The purpose of law is to place objective control over the RETALIATORY force that is government.
apluce21 3 years ago
What exactly are "property rights" when it comes to land? In Scotland I believe that there is no "law of trespass." You are only accountable if you "damage the property"? In many ways this is a more appealing notion than one in which property ownership gives you some sort of absolute control over it. I mean, imagine a world where ALL property is "private property" and your rights to move around were curtailed.
modelmotion 3 years ago