Does Truth = Peace?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Your example is predicated on an irrational society, in contrast with mine which is predicated on an entirely rational society.

Are you saying self interest isn't rational?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It is illogical to argue from the standpoint you are arguing from.

I agree, but it is you who said that property ownership is logical.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
This is no different than me proposing a world where gravity is inverted and everyone must live in a cave or go flying off into outer space, then formulating logical premises based on this society to deduce what could happen in the real world.

I agree with you. The world we have created of dog eat dog based on property ownership and competition is illogical and irrational, and quite contrary to natural law.

The truth is painful.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by Mr Tranny


It seems pretty obvious to me.

If a person has not initiated violence or stolen/damaged someones property, they are "innocent".

That seems like a pretty black and white definition of "innocent" that can be empirically demonstrated through the application of logic to me.

We can determine empirically if a person is "innocent" by that definition.

reply to post by mnemeth1


What about the deer hunter?

I understand that you think that if all men realized this "truth" that all would stop using violence against each other but the other "truth" is that violence makes things easier. Like the hunter that can go out a couple of days and bring home 150 lbs of meat thanks to violence, it's easier for the rich to come together and form a government and tax you. That is natural.

reply to post by IAMIAM


If you are going to argue that the libertarian definition of property ownership is illogical, then you have to show why.

en.wikipedia.org...

Good luck with that.

reply to post by daskakik


The non-aggression principle only applies to people, not animals, which are considered property if homesteaded or purchased.

Animals can not be rational actors.

The ability to reason is what makes us human.

reply to post by mnemeth1


How convenient.

Still doesn't mean that violence isn't part of nature and therefore part of reality. Even human on human.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

It is illogical to deny aid if something of value is offered in return.

Since family A has a farm, they can sell the farm to the owners of B,C,D,E etc.. in exchange for food/shelter and then seek employment for future sustenance.

Alternatively, they could offer to labor on their neighbors farm in exchange for food.

It is not rationally logical to argue from a standpoint of an entire society acting irrationally, which is what your example is doing.

For your hypothetical example to ever play itself out in reality, each individual actor in an entire society would have to act against their own self interest.

edit on 22-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

If the land that each of them has grows just enough for each of their families to eat for the winter…… that means…………..

If family B,C, or D…… give family A any food, then they (the people giving them the food) would starve. So they could buy the farm in exchange for food, but they would die from lack of food……….. So, how is it different from family A killing them and taking their food?

reply to post by daskakik


The point is to demonstrate that violence only exists between humans because they are acting irrationally.

If they are acting irrationally it is because they believe something that is false about reality.

A person acting irrationally must be lying to himself or be in a state of ignorance.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

If you are going to argue that the libertarian definition of property ownership is illogical, then you have to show why.

en.wikipedia.org...

Good luck with that.

Don't throw labels around that I did not use. I used the most liberal example of ownership in my example, the fruits of ones labor. That idea of ownership coupled with the idea of SELF INTEREST is what causes violence in the world today.

We live on a finite planet with finite resources and an infinite population. That IS the reality. My example is sound taking the macro world and reducing it to a micro world that we can handle within this discussion.

You could easily visualise the families representing nations and the challenges these face heading into the future.

You can play the game and see the truth, or continue to live in your own fantasy world where everyone is rational, ie. "thinks like you do".

So, each family is looking out for their own self interests, banking on the demise of family A so that they can acquire more land and resources.

You are family A. What do you do?

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


I'm not throwing labels around.

I didn't call you anything.

I'm simply saying that if you want to claim libertarian property rights are irrational, then the onus is on you to show why.

I don't think you can.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

I'm not throwing labels around.

I didn't call you anything.

I'm simply saying that if you want to claim libertarian property rights are irrational, then the onus is on you to show why.

I don't think you can.

I am.

You are refusing to see.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


I am what?

Refusing to see that your example is predicated on an entirely irrational society in which every actor must be acting against his own self-interests?

reply to post by mnemeth1


I think a person who kills someone because they stand to gain alot is being very rational, not very moral, but rational. In either case it is very real so again truth =/= peace.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Mr Tranny

 

It seems pretty obvious to me.

If a person has not initiated violence or stolen/damaged someones property, they are "innocent".

That seems like a pretty black and white definition of "innocent" that can be empirically demonstrated through the application of logic to me.

We can determine empirically if a person is "innocent" by that definition.

Very simple question. If someone did not intentionally initiate violence, steal or damage someone/something, but their actions resulted in violence stolen or damaged people/things, then are they innocent?

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
If the land that each of them has grows just enough for each of their families to eat for the winter…… that means…………..

If family B,C, or D…… give family A any food, then they (the people giving them the food) would starve. So they could buy the farm in exchange for food, but they would die from lack of food……….. So, how is it different from family A killing them and taking their food?

If each family contributed a little, each could survive.

This is a self interest community though. The logical path for self interest is survival of the fittest. So, if family A dies, each family knows that is more land for them to divide up. That is why they will not help. It is in their logical self interest not to.

What would you do if you were family A.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Mr Tranny

 

It seems pretty obvious to me.

If a person has not initiated violence or stolen/damaged someones property, they are "innocent".

That seems like a pretty black and white definition of "innocent" that can be empirically demonstrated through the application of logic to me.

We can determine empirically if a person is "innocent" by that definition.

Very simple question. If someone did not intentionally initiate violence, steal or damage someone/something, but their actions resulted in violence stolen or damaged people/things, then are they innocent?

If they did not intentionally initiate violence, then whatever they did that resulted in harm to another was an accident. Unless the person was grossly negligent in their actions, then they are innocent of intent.

The same is true for the property.

Of course, the person who they damaged is still entitled to compensation for the loss.

Bottom line is that it would be irrational for the person who was harmed to initiate violence against the other over an accident, so the non-aggression principle still applies.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I am what?

Refusing to see that your example is predicated on an entirely irrational society in which every actor must be acting against his own self-interests?

I am proving that property rights are irrational.

How is each actor acting against their own self interest?

Each gains more land if family A dies off.

What have they to gain by helping family A?

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


Self interest is exchanging things that one person values more than the other.

Even if a person has no possessions to their name, their labor still has value to others.

Therefore it is logical to assume that a person who is hungry will voluntarily exchange his labor for food if that the only way he can acquire it.

It is also logical to assume that a person who has excess food to spare will willingly give it in exchange for another's labor.

This might not be true at each individual level, but when taken as a whole, it is an absolute certainty that someone will be willing to make such a trade otherwise we are back to your world where everyone acts irrationally.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

It is also logical to assume that a person who has excess food to spare will willingly give it in exchange for another's labor.

Not if they can keep their food and move into the starved families land next spring. Besides the grandchildren are on the way so they need to have a place for them to live and grow.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Self interest is exchanging things that one person values more than the other.

Even if a person has no possessions to their name, their labor still has value to others.

Have you seen the numbers of unemployed lately?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Therefore it is logical to assume that a person who is hungry will voluntarily exchange his labor for food if that the only way he can acquire it.

It is also logical to assume that a person who has excess food to spare will willingly give it in exchange for another's labor.

I thought you were seriously looking to arrive at some truth in this thread. Instead, you are trying to define it in your own world that has no reflection of the one we live in.

Good luck my friend. You are a long way from the truth.

You will know it when you feel the pain of it.

With Love,

Your Brother