if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.
Started by Vichy, June 04, 2008, 01:53:51 AM
Quote from: "Vichy"Furthermore (and this is rarely the case) even if property were largely communalized in some situations, the concern of ethics as I understand it (given argumentation ethics makes private property is the only rational possible argument of justification or morality of property disputes); if that 'communalizing' occurred voluntarily it was just, if it was coerced it is unjust.
Quote from: "Vichy"From my perspective this is an objective fact, not simply something I like.
Quote from: "Vichy"Because of the nature of reality (rational) and the necessity of rational argumentation for social interaction, and the inescapability of private property as the basis of any argumentation, only private property can be ethical. One cannot claim to be in the right ethically (or wrong) without assuming private property by their very action, and if they attempt to contradict it they are merely speaking self-contradictory nonsense.
Quote from: "rlrose328"OT POST COMING UP...That sound you heard? That was my head exploding.END OT POST
Quote from: "Vichy"When I say 'from my perspective' I mean, 'it is my understanding that as a necessary fact of the existence of the Universe and human consciousness that any attempt at justification necessarily entails an acceptance of private property and thus no ethical argument can ever contradict this principle without becoming nonsensical.
Quote from: "Vichy"It is not something 'subjective' in that it's truth or falsity depends on particular circumstances or perspectives, it is objective (as all true statements, at least in principle, must be; IE even statements like 'ice cream is good' is true in the sense that it is the case that I like ice cream). This is because all of reality is and must be rational, consistent and conformed to the laws of logic (likewise, logic makes no sense without the existence of things to which it could apply).
Quote from: "Vichy"If one is rather loose and open with one's property, it does not change the fact of who the just owner and user of that property is, IE if I kind of share it with you or let you take freely or based on noncontractual presumption of reciprocity I can do that justly precisely because it is my property and were someone to deny me the right to do that - or to refrain from doing so - they would be acting unjustly. All non-invasive use of private property (entailed by the concept of private property) and voluntary transfer of property (compensated or uncompensated) are just actions. All invasion and prevention or force of property transfers are unjust actions. Again, I believe this is ultimately entailed by the logic of existence and prerequisites in communicative justification, not simply as some utilitarian outcome I prefer; the outcome is important to us as individuals but not relevant to the question of its justice insofar as private property is not violated.
Quote from: "Vichy"No, because only individuals can act or determine the use of something, which is true even in Stalinist Communism, it is simply the head of whatever assigned department who factually 'owns' it.
Quote from: "Vichy"Collective property is nonsensical in fact, and any notion of 'collective' property is not collective property but rather unclear property delianation, which is an inevitable source of conflict and therefor a problem itself.
Quote from: "Vichy"And, again, all I am concerned with is that private property is an inviolable component of any consistent (and therefor correct) morality, thus anything which conforms thusly is just and anything which violates private property is unjust absolutely irregardless of whether anyone does or does not understand or behave in this manner. What is right is right, and, yes, objective a priori logic is absolutely necessary, the statement that deductive logic is somehow 'subjective' is rendered utterly nonsensical since it entails the proposition that all deductive (or all argumentative) statements are subjective which is in itself an axiomatic deductively true statement, contradictory to its own premise.
Quote from: "Vichy"That's nonsense.
Quote from: "Willravel"I'm not saying all logic is subjective. Only philosophical logic. I'm not using philosophical logic.