/liberty/ - Liberty

>Academic standards

What the fuck does he mean by this?

>>61116

I answered you in the thread. The worth of ethics is the results in real life that following them creates. If two completely different standards results in the exact same consequences in real life, they are effectively the same.

>>61119

>Theoretical or speculative; abstract; scholarly, literary or classical, in distinction to practical or vocational; having no practical importance.

>>61121

>I answered you in the thread. The worth of ethics is the results in real life that following them creates. If two completely different standards results in the exact same consequences in real life, they are effectively the same.

So basically, you claim that your standard is the only one that's commonsensical, and all others are just academic nonsense. That's equivalent to saying "I'm right" and believing that settles a debate.

>>61121

>>Theoretical or speculative; abstract; scholarly, literary or classical, in distinction to practical or vocational; having no practical importance.

So the difference is on how much practical use you put into property?

I need more context. I have no idea what's going on.

>>61128

Meant to link to>>61121

>>61121

>The ends justify the means

Gross.

>>61116

You should have left that jibberish alone. Not everything said deserves an answer.

>>61125

No, my point is your standard seems to only have any value in a theoretical realm.

>>61127

The results of property is irrelevant to you, your only concern with property is whether it is legitimately owned. Your ethics are purely theoretical.

>>61128

I wouldn't call scenario two a case of ethics. It's a difference between:

>I don't fuck goats because I think it's unethical to fuck without consent

and

>I don't fuck goats because I think it's unethical to fuck non-humans

One might be more rational and logically sound than the other, but the worth of both ethical principles are the same since the result is the same real world outcome.

>>61149

That's not what I'm saying.

>>61173

>One might be more rational and logically sound than the other, but the worth of both ethical principles are the same since the result is the same real world outcome.

What worth? Are we measuring them in some sort of objective value system now? We can speak of efficiency in achieving desired subjective results. A discussion of value is meaningless.

>>61116

Ancap ideas of property claims are shit tbh. You can't just have something because you like it. You have to change it otherwise it's not actually yours and may freely be taken and ruined by others as far as ancaps are concerned. I get the importance of marking one's territory, but it would be much better for everybody that matters to agree upon who owns what without any pedantic bullshit and shoot any outsiders that try to dispute this.

Masturbating Mathew lays claim to a piece of forest at the outskirts of Rapetown, and fully exercises his right to keep people out. However, he has never stepped foot in this area because he says it's the site of a summoning circle for the alien god and anybody that enters may accidentally complete the ritual. Or some drugged up hobo nonsense along those lines. However, everybody in Rapetown respects and acknowledges his claim. Who are you as an outsider to claim that he does not own this land?

>>61128

Incorrect.

For as long as the yank holds true to his principles and the terrorist-Pajeet obeys the law and said law stays constant then no goats shall be fucked. However, if the paki suddenly feels alienated from his village or its laws, the village's authority is changed to a body more tolerant of bestiality, he travels to a town where goatfucking is accepted, or he simply thinks he can get away with it, then a goat shall be fucked. The yank will never willingly fuck a goat under any circumstances unless -unlike the paki- he meets one that shows clear sexual interest and demonstrates that she fully understands the implications of having sex with a man.

Thus, either man may fuck a goat, and it is the reasoning preventing them from fucking goats that dictates what the exceptions shall be. Why do you not want goats to be fucked by men, and consequently which exception would you prefer?

>>61199

>Who are you as an outsider to claim that he does not own this land?

Because he's just as much of an outsider as I am as far as this tree is concerned. The forest is neither on his property, nor has he improved on it. So he's in the position of the stupid asshole that keeps some valuable resource just for giggles and prevents others from making productive use of it.

>>61199

>implying that's how property works

Matthew would have to at least fence it off and/or put up a few signs to actually own that part of the forest. He needs to do something with it, even if it's as simple as marking it off so other people don't wander in.

>calling americans yanks

Yankees live up north and are scum. I don't call scotsmen english, so don't call southerners yanks.

>>61205

He means that Matthew ought to own the tree because everyone "that matters" agreed to it. It's a critique of anarchocapitalist property theory. Not a good critique, I think.

>>61202

>Because he's just as much of an outsider as I am as far as this tree is concerned.

So are you saying that the tree has self-ownership that we should respect, or that property is a spook?

>The forest is neither on his property

Yes it is. The land the forest is on is his property. All the locals agree it is his and he will shoot you if you try to take it from him, and if you shoot back then you will be lynched.

>productive use

Define that objectively.

He is making productive use of it because he is keeping people from summoning the Alien God. What better cause is there? Timber or crops for somebody else? That does not benefit him, so it's not productive.

The point is that productivity is arbitrary because what is useful is subjective and not necessarily materialistic. An antiques collector still makes use of his old wardrobe in his basement even though it's had a sheet over it for the past 20 years, because he is happy knowing that it is preserved. Do you suggest we rob him because he has never stored his jacket in it? Does his claim to the wardrobe lose credibility because you think he's "stupid"? The same is true for land also. Somebody who claims a wild place and keeps it wild because they believe this wild state is perfection and excludes people so as to prevent them from harming this perfection then their claim is just as legitimate as a farmer's claim to a field. Even for something stupid like a schizophrenic homeless man in Rapetown wanting a plot of land so that not even he can step foot on it, that claim is legitimate.

>>61205

>signs

Yes, he absolutely should have done that. It would make his life much easier since every trespasser has plausible deniability. However, signs are not what makes something property. It is the owner's claim to that thing, and others who have the means to infringe on the property respecting that claim that makes property.

>don't call southerners yanks

Sorry, mate, but outside of the US all americans are "yanks" whether they are yankee, southern or texan. Maybe when you cunts adopt the metric system we'll stop calling you yanks.

>>61173

>The results of property is irrelevant to you, your only concern with property is whether it is legitimately owned.

The fact that one is concerned with how something comes to be owned does not indicate that one is concerned only with how it comes to be owned. Your assertion is baseless.

>Your ethics are purely theoretical.

No; they are abstract. You would do well to understand the difference between the abstract and the theoretical. Mathematics is abstract, but I trust that you would not be so insane as to dismiss its conclusions as being without practical significance. Ethics can only be abstract. Concerning yourself exclusively with material outcomes is not ethics, because ethics is the examination of normative premises, which necessarily can only be abstract. These abstract premises, however, have very real practical consequences which are important to understand. You must understand and apply them properly in the abstract in order to reach meaningful practical conclusions. To begin with a desired conclusion and then to accept or reject a methodology based on its ability to yield the desired conclusion is just as irrational as it is to begin with a desired solution to a mathematics problem and to accept or reject a method of solving it based on whether or not you like the specific answer.

>>61704

>So are you saying that the tree has self-ownership that we should respect, or that property is a spook?

No, I mean that Matthew had just as little actual contact with the tree as you did. He's in the same position as you concerning that tree: No meaningful interaction with it, he doesn't preserve it, it isn't near his property, there is no relation between Matthew and the tree at all.

That this didn't occur to you but self-ownership to trees did is so goddamn sad I cannot even come up with a snarky comment. It speaks for itself.

>Yes it is. The land the forest is on is his property. All the locals agree it is his and he will shoot you if you try to take it from him, and if you shoot back then you will be lynched.

I obviously meant "before he made his claim", but I'll just run with this.

You said before that property is a matter of everyone "that matters" agreeing with a claim. Why do they matter? Why should a community own every ressource in a twenty-mile radius? Why does it matter if they will lynch me? That has nothing to do with the legitimacy of their claim, which is what we were talking about. And before you come to me with any sophistry on how property is always violence, remember that this would undermine your point. When conquest and robbery are legitimate means of acquiring property, then there's no reason to talk about legitimate or illegitimate property, ever.

>>61704

You are confusing territory with property. No one questions that it is his territory.

>>61708

Conquest and robbery are legitimate means of acquiring property. But only when civility* has been thrown out the window. When you rob or conquer someone, their stuff is yours as long as you can protect it but you can no longer cry foul when they or those they are on civil terms with do you wrong.

*By "civility" here, I mean that there is an unspoken agreement of mutual respect for the purpose of mutual benefit or at the very least, peace. You probably have civility with those you do business with, as well as your countrymen in general even if you are completely isolated economically from them such as hobos, hippies, reclusives etcetera if only to uphold the standard of not stealing from one another. But this respect is probably not shown to wildlife. Not because animals lack self-ownership but because there can be no long-term mutual understanding between you and them and thus no civility. The same is true for enemies: They may have self-ownership and they may use and improve their land but since there is no civility between your people and them then all of their claims are illegitimate to you and thus your spoils of theft and conquest are legitimately yours.

But let's say that you are a citizen of Rapetown, or that a settlement's proximity truly doesn't mean shit. Why does it matter to you? You have your land which you use to grow crops, hunt and let your children frolic in. Masturbating Mathew sleeps on park benches and jacks off in front of strangers because he doesn't want to touch his plot. You may not like what he is doing -or rather not doing- with his land but he doesn't exclude you or Mankind as a whole from much land, he respects your claims and he doesn't cause you any grief beyond the occasional friendly buttrape, so why is his claim such a problem that you would refuse to acknowledge it?

>Why should a community own every ressource in a twenty-mile radius?

Because if the outskirts are regarded as "unclaimed" then they might be claimed. If they are regarded as "public property" then they can dismiss private claims without preventing the locals from going there to hunt, hike or just dick around.

But that's neither here nor there. Those that own shit within that radius need someone to turn to to support their claims in case of infringement.

>>61715

What's the difference? Is he still allowed to exclude people?

>>61719

Territory is an area that an animal consistently defends. Property deals with ownership (e.g. the improvements on the land rather than the land itself). Property does not imply exclusivity (e.g. right-of-way, walking on someone's sidewalk). Since there are no improvements on the land, Matthew does not own anything on it.