Locke, 10/15

mdegges: "So yes, there is an ethical limitation to how much property, i.e. objects of nature that sustain life, one can legitimately acquire without undermining the very legitimacy of acquiring it."
Eiuol: Who said that one?
mdegges: DA :P
Eiuol: k
Eiuol: Implied by Locke seems to be "You can't take enough where a consequence will be someone's inability to acquire it leading to their demise." That's just... the premise of egalitarianism.
mdegges: grames is right when he that land does not equal all property. ie: land is finite. but property includes intellectual property, items, and land.
Eiuol: Well not quite extreme egalitarianism, but it's the idea you only need "so much" and you shouldn't take more than you need to survive, because other people need it, too.
mdegges: yes, and by taking too much, you're infringing on others rights.
Eiuol: The reason Grames is right is because a better approach is to consider property intellectual in nature. Tangible is incidental really, and not why these things are called property from an Oist perspective.
Eiuol: To say "you shouldn't waste land" is presuming you can specify how it is being wasted. I wonder how Grames would answer about how to go out and claim property on Mars, say. It would be sheer absurdity to set foot on Mars then say "I own it all!"
Eiuol: Locke's point is more about making use of land makes it property, but that doesn't seem complete.
mdegges: property rights must include the right to destroy property as you see fit, too.
Eiuol: Yes, that too.
mdegges: or it is not really your property to begin with
Eiuol: Or you'd just be falling into a trap of "well, you don't have a right to destroy, only to create!" Locke is better than NOTHING about property rights or rights in general, but...
mdegges: its sort of collectivist, isn't it? 'we are all bound to each other'...'you cant get a bike for christmas unless i get one too'
Eiuol: Well, it could go down that road. I think it'd have to go down that road eventually.
mdegges: "My concern is that the context being overlooked is ownership of a finite resource, the waste of which is of consequence to your neighbor's ability to acquire future property of their own."
Eiuol: Or you just stay locked (LOL) into his ideas, not expanding.
mdegges: f3.
Eiuol: "Neighbor's ability to acquire" is inherently being infringed when you acquire anything. I buy tickets to a concert. I end up not going. That totally stops my neighbor who wanted the tickets even more than me from going. I wasted the tickets.
mdegges: ahhh good point. :o
Eiuol: "Oh but that won't lead to your neighbor's demise or destruction"
mdegges: are there any cases where it would? i'm trying to think of one. let's say water sources are privatized, instead of government run.. and i buy a water source, and refuse to sell water to anyone, therefore wasting what i've bought.
Eiuol: Well it's actually my point that "infringing" in that way is actually no problem, at least if we take the position that one has a right by their ability to use property and know how to, plus that a person needs full reign over property as they fit for long-term thinking. The neighbor not acquiring it would make plans accordingly.
mdegges: ie: make a well?
Eiuol: But to go on saying "Well, it makes me resort to extreme options!" Well I suppose it does. The other extreme is to use force, i.e. force the property owner to not take a particular action that they deem appropriate (whether or not YOU know the action is a good idea, like not selling water to anyone). The only thing I didn't resolve here is how MUCH water could you claim? I'm not sure how to specify that.
mdegges:: DA would say you couldn't claim ALL the water, because doing so would stop your neighbors from being able to get water.
Eiuol: Because it's "not right" or because it's impossible? Well suppose they own the ONLY well in a desert, so we ignore issues of large rivers or lakes for now. The property owners refuse to sell water to the people in the desert. By not having water, these people die. So, I'd say "Well, they sure as hell better move!"
mdegges: right. but they dont have a 'right' to water in the first place. what they have is a right to use their minds to figure out how to get water.
Eiuol: Either you figure out how the well was made, or get out. DA might go on to say "But these people have made long term plans to live there because they had the ability to purchase water" "Taking it away would infringe rights" Then we just get into the point of AS
mdegges: i think he would say that people have a right to water, because they must have it for survival.
Eiuol: "Hey, we made plans to live here forever because you provide us with oil/gold/trains! Now you took it away! Immoral."
Eiuol: That's possible. Still, it gets right into the Wyatt's Torch thread. Oh man, I love my puns.
mdegges: f3. OK- example. you're alone on a desert island. just saying 'i have a right to water and food' doesn't get you water or food. when dealing with other people, it's the same thing.
Eiuol: Yeah. The right comes from the mind, your ability to acquire the food/water. If you don't figure it out, you die. The only issue is if you DEPEND on another person to exist.
mdegges: you never do (unless you're a baby/child)
Eiuol: But in the sense of moocher in AS. Well, a kid does depend in a literal way.
mdegges: the fallacy is that we depend on other people imo.
Eiuol: Yes. Fundamentally, it's secondhandedness or parasitism.
mdegges: if you're on a desert island, you can get water and food by yourself. irl, you don't depend on a paycheck to survive. you depend on yourself going into work every day, in order to earn that paycheck