Shooting a girl on your property

[Dylboz]

Everyone leave everyone else alone is fine. It refers to actual people, and jibes with our intuitions and common sense. What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.

Well, I couldn't make the objectivist objectively explain why two objects are both fully owned but different rules apply to them.  So, I'll settle for you.

Why is it absurd?  Why is the ownership of one physical object subject to different rules than the ownership of a different physical object?  Is there any other kind of object besides land that has special ownership rules?  What about ball point pens? 

I was talking about the difference between humans and property. Your body is not the same as a pen, or land. I don't think a body is owned. A body is the necessary physical presence of an entity that owns property. Selves can't be owned, they do the owning of things, and a requirement for that is recognition of their status as moral agents capable of making reciprocal agreements about ownership and rights, which includes the integrity of that body. A key feature of property is the ability to transfer ownership, something that you absolutely cannot do with a self, which is inseparable from the body of which it is an emergent property. It may be useful to apply some of the same rules to the body that we'd use for property, but that should not conflate them. At best, treating the body as mere property is a poor analogy. At worst, the conflation leads to the sort of absurd conclusions that NHAT and others make.

[Ecolitan]

Everyone leave everyone else alone is fine. It refers to actual people, and jibes with our intuitions and common sense. What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.

Well, I couldn't make the objectivist objectively explain why two objects are both fully owned but different rules apply to them.  So, I'll settle for you.

Why is it absurd?  Why is the ownership of one physical object subject to different rules than the ownership of a different physical object?  Is there any other kind of object besides land that has special ownership rules?  What about ball point pens? 

I was talking about the difference between humans and property. Your body is not the same as a pen, or land. I don't think a body is owned. A body is the necessary physical presence of an entity that owns property. Selves can't be owned, they do the owning of things, and a requirement for that is recognition of their status as moral agents capable of making reciprocal agreements about ownership and rights. A key feature of property is the ability to transfer ownership, something that you absolutely cannot do with a self, which is inseparable from the body of which it is an emergent property.

OK.   So now we know why it's not OK to shoot someone who violates your body, you don't own it.  However I still don't see how your 30 acres of corn is different from your car, or your GI Joe collection.

[Dylboz]

OK.   So now we know why it's not OK to shoot someone who violates your body, you don't own it.  However I still don't see how your 30 acres of corn is different from your car, or your GI Joe collection.

I didn't say that, not in this thread, nor anywhere else. In fact, quite the opposite. If you're going to be dishonest, we're done here.

[Ecolitan]

It was sarcasm.  I pointed out that you didn't come anywhere close to answering my question or even make that much sense.

You made the argument that a person doesn't own her vagina but that has nothing at all to do with their putt putt golf course.  Presumably a person still owns their putt putt golf course so why can't you shoot the girl?

[NHArticleTen]

Sometimes, you're such an idiot, NHAT. To the extent that you isolate your self (with land mines, really? Come on!) and have to create the goods you consume by your self or do without, you are POOR. Everyone CAN'T just leave everyone else alone ALL THE TIME. The market requires interaction, it requires commerce, communication, travel, what used to be called intercourse (of the non-sexual kind). So, when a girls scout knocks on your door with a wagon full of cookies, you don't just shoot her. If you don't want cookies, and you don't want her to come back next year, you say so, you don't hang her carcass from a tress at the end of your property line and roll her burning Radio Flyer down the hill into the village. You'd be RADed from that area poste haste, and with good cause.

Basic civility and the etiquette of market interaction require as much. And you're insane with your fixation on violence, it's as if all you want is an excuse to start firing and call it "defense," a reputation for which would likely be your undoing in a genuine free market. No one has hurt or threatened you by walking up your driveway asking for help because their car broke down up the street. It is NOT an act of aggression, until it becomes one (I'm a big fan of Clockwork Orange, so yeah, be careful, but don't just shoot first and ask questions later). Hopping your fence at night with a weapon and wearing a balaclava obviously is. The context is the key, and you're smart enough to know the difference, so don't give me this dumb shit about tigers, you don't have any fucking tigers, Rob.

And while we're talking here, "your rights end at the beginning of my fence..." is exactly the 'Royal Prerogative' problem I mentioned above. I have no rights at all if I'm on your property, so you're just a little absolute dictator on your mini-state. As I asked above, how is that NOT a multiplication of, as opposed to a solution to, the problems of the current statist horror? Go back and read my longer post and try and explain it to me. Otherwise, I'll just continue to think you're mostly nuts and mildly entertaining.

I'm not isolated...I'm rich...I maintain a vault where people store their valuables and my tigers and alligators and land-mines and fences and moats keep the vault safe and secure...

People pay me handsomely for protecting their property...

Go figure....

[Ecolitan]

and I don't have a moat or a vault.  I am poor and own only a ball point pen.

Do I get the same rights to defend my ball point pen that Rob does to defend the crown jewels?

[NHArticleTen]

and I don't have a moat or a vault.  I am poor and own only a ball point pen.

Do I get the same rights to defend my ball point pen that Rob does to defend the crown jewels?

in NHAT-World...most definitely yes...property is sacred...

to wit, you should defend against pen theft as if your life depended on it...you can kill someone with a pen...if you doubt that then let someone drive one through your eye socket into your brain...and see how that feels...

if there is no blurriness...

there is only clarity...

fences make excellent neighbors...

an armed society is indeed a polite society...

enjoy!

[Dylboz]

It was sarcasm.  I pointed out that you didn't come anywhere close to answering my question or even make that much sense.

You made the argument that a person doesn't own her vagina but that has nothing at all to do with their putt putt golf course.  Presumably a person still owns their putt putt golf course so why can't you shoot the girl?

You can't shoot the girl because there is no necessity to do so to protect your pen, or your vagina. You don't own her, can't own her, and therefore you can't dispose of her like property. So unless she is threatening your bodily integrity and your continued ability to own things like pens or putt-putt courses, then it's an indefensible act of aggression. If she takes your pen, take it back. If she escalates or resists, use whatever reasonable amount of force is necessary to reclaim your pen and prevent her from trying to take it again, mindful of the fact that she's just a little girl and probably has parents who love her very much.

The problem is, I think you have conflated property rights with the self integrity required to make property claims and have rights through reciprocal agreements. Property is not the basis of all rights, and not all rights are property rights. All rights extend from the basic respect individuals give each other to make such claims without violation or interference. That requires bodily integrity, since that's where the self resides. But property rights to pens and putt-putt courses are a step beneath that. Life, the life that is required to have a self that can make claims to rights or property, is something over and above property. They're not the same, but at times can be treated the same. It's that conflation that leads to the confusion.

[Dylboz]

and I don't have a moat or a vault.  I am poor and own only a ball point pen.

Do I get the same rights to defend my ball point pen that Rob does to defend the crown jewels?

in NHAT-World...most definitely yes...property is sacred...

to wit, you should defend against pen theft as if your life depended on it...you can kill someone with a pen...if you doubt that then let someone drive one through your eye socket into your brain...and see how that feels...

if there is no blurriness...

there is only clarity...

fences make excellent neighbors...

an armed society is indeed a polite society...

enjoy!

You're a religious mystic who imbues inanimate objects with properties they do not have. It's as if they become inhabited by the spirit of those who claim to own them, which is not the case.

[NHArticleTen]

of course, many human beings would love for the world to be incredibly blurry and fuzzy all the time...or at least when it benefits them and their hoards of looters...

and, for the most part, people continue to compromise and produce fuzzy and blurry societies...which end because of the fuzziness/blurriness/compromise/capitulation/etc.

then it all starts all over again...

fucking looters start looting again and the others put up with a little...and then more...and then more...until the looters either consume everything or they are refused and repelled...(only to start looting again soon if they aren't destroyed and eliminated for the betterment of all concerned)...

so...the real question is...

do you feel luck enough to get past the fences/moats/alligators/tigers/landmines/etc....?

well, do ya punk?

I'm guessin' I know which side of the fence you're gonna stay on...

and I'm guessin' that that little girl scout doesn't have anymore balls than you do either...

go figure...

fucking looters anyways...

[NHArticleTen]

and I don't have a moat or a vault.  I am poor and own only a ball point pen.

Do I get the same rights to defend my ball point pen that Rob does to defend the crown jewels?

in NHAT-World...most definitely yes...property is sacred...

to wit, you should defend against pen theft as if your life depended on it...you can kill someone with a pen...if you doubt that then let someone drive one through your eye socket into your brain...and see how that feels...

if there is no blurriness...

there is only clarity...

fences make excellent neighbors...

an armed society is indeed a polite society...

enjoy!

You're a religious mystic who imbues inanimate objects with properties they do not have. It's as if they become inhabited by the spirit of those who claim to own them, which is not the case.

I bet you are smart enough not to be found on my property though...

or are you?

hmmm...

[Dylboz]

I knew you would not, could not, answer the question. You just want to be the Grand Ahyatolla of your own little piece of land, Rob. Able to do what the state does, to decide who lives and dies, whose claims to rights and property you respect or don't, arbitrarily and however it suits you at the time, because their rights ended where your fence begins. Your only objection to the state's power is simply that it isn't yours. You're a caricature of yourself, the jackboot on your own estate.

Not my cup of tea. I like other people, I like culture, commerce and the market. I don't want to live in a bunker surrounded by mines. You enjoy yourself, I'll avoid you like the plague, which shouldn't be too hard if you really do what you say you want to do.

[NHArticleTen]

I knew you would not, could not, answer the question. You just want to be the Grand Ahyatolla of your own little piece of land, Rob. Able to do what the state does, to decide who lives and dies, whose claims to rights and property you respect or don't, arbitrarily and however it suits you at the time, because their rights ended where your fence begins. Your only objection to the state's power is simply that it isn't yours. You're a caricature of yourself, the jackboot on your own estate.

Not my cup of tea. I like other people, I like culture, commerce and the market. I don't want to live in a bunker surrounded by mines. You enjoy yourself, I'll avoid you like the plague, which shouldn't be too hard if you really do what you say you want to do.

fortunately for some...
unfortunately for others...
there are others protecting property...
and doing it with very effective exclusivity...

(what question were you referring to?)

[Ecolitan]

You can't shoot the girl because there is no necessity to do so to protect your pen, or your vagina.

But she IS a threat to my land.  It is consecrated land and no one who is not of the sacred tribe of Royce has ever stepped foot on it.  This must be remedied, or my gods will punish me and my progeny for a thousand generations.

The problem is, I think you have conflated property rights with the self integrity required to make property claims and have rights through reciprocal agreements.

the problem is, I think that you think I am for shooting the girl.  I am not but I'm not interested in stating my position and defending it.  Much more interested in someone having just one single principled argument that explains why it's OK to defend your Rolex with force but not your lawn.  ONE single principled reason why the ownership of the two objects don't follow the same rules.  I have mine.  What's yours?  

So we don't get too far off topic.  Here are the relevant quotes.

What isn't fine is treating 40 acres of open land the same as the inside of your vagina, Rob. It's absurd.

 

For one thing, your land is nothing like your pocket.

[Dylboz]

You don't bother reading much either, do you Rob?

Anyway, when you equate life and property, despite the fact that the former precedes the latter, and the latter is meaningless without the former, you wind up with absurd positions like "the girl is as much my property to dispose of as the lint in my pocket when she is on my property." Life is superior to property, property is just a claim that can only be made, and reciprocated, by living beings.