Er lockeansk eiendomsrett forsvarlig?

[A_R_I]

Ordet "eiendom" har en interessant opprinnelse i germanske språk. På norsk har vi den danske formen og da er det ikke umiddelbart åpenbart å se opphavet, mens på nynorsk gir det straks mening: "eigedom". "Eigen" kommer fra "eg" og betyr JEG. Så en direkte ordrett oversettelse av eiendom er JEG-HET, en del av egoet.

 

Dette viser at germanerne tidlig utviklet et begrep som ligger nært opp til Lockes eiendomsteori. Locke hevdet at eierskap oppstår når man blander sitt arbeid med naturtilstanden. Logikken er altså som følger: hver og en eier sitt liv, inkludert tiden sin. Tiden og energien man bruker på å skape noe manifesterer seg i form av produkter, og selv om disse produktene ikke er en fysisk del av den metaboliske kroppen er de like fullt en del av ens liv, en eiendom.

 

Eiendomsrett betyr at en person har suverenitet over en bestemt ting. Han kan bestemme over den og ekskludere andre fra å bruke tingen. Eiendomsrett er eksklusiv.

 

Men konsekvensen av dette er at de såkalte sosiale rettighetene også er en form for eiendom. I et sosialdemokrati er det alstå slik at trengende mennesker eier ressurssterke mennesker til en viss grad. Tenk det, i Norge eier du ikke ditt eget liv. Du er eid av fellesskapet.

 

Norge og den store deler av den vestlige verden har altså snudd hele virkeligheten på hodet og endret eiendom fra et stolt egoistisk begrep til å være delvis synonymt med slaveri. Det er en trist utvikling.

 

Vi liberalister jobber derfor nå med å snu utviklingen. På nettstedet debate.org har den norske filosofi-eksperten Onar Åm utfordret amerikaneren Sieben til debatt om lockeansk eiendomsrett. Her er utviklingen så langt:

 

Onar Åm:

 

In this debate I will argue for the existence of objective, reality based (natural) property rights based on work/production. This is also known as the Lockean theory of property, after John Locke who first formulated it more than 300 years ago. I will divide ownership into two sub-concepts: attribution and control. In the first section I will show that attribution stems from life itself as a biological process, and in the second section I will argue that for humans in particular ownership also implies the right to control that which can be attributed to you.

 

Claim one, attribution: "I built this house, therefore it is MY creation."

Claim two, control: "It is MY house, therefore I have a souvereign right to control it so long as I am peaceful and respect others."

 

(1) Attribution ownership through work

 

Definition: An object is a thing which maintains its cohesion over time. It has well-defioned identity and it remains that way over time. A rock is a typical object.

 

Definition: A process is a collection of objects that continuously expend energy and constituent objects. Thus, it does not have a well-defined identity in the same way as objects. Clouds and rivers are processes, and not objects.

 

Life itself too is a process: every 7 years every single atom in our bodies is replaced with new ones. We are constantly expending energy and changing our constituents.

 

Yet somehow it seems that life behaves like an object too: it has ha well-defined boundary (the cell wall in cells, the skin in multicellular organisms) and it maintains its identity that defines it over time.

 

This curious nature of life as semi-object is due to the fact that the processes that make up a living being are of such a nature that they continuously produce and regenerate the structure of the organism that is needed to produce the organism. Its identity is a self-producing, self-defining, self-sustaining process. Thus, a living being is defined by its self-production. Work is needed to define an organism as itself. They exist only because they are self-creating.

 

Hence, attribution of existents result from the biological process of production. Everything of a biological nature that exists is entirely due to work. Hence a dog exists because the dog produces itself. Hence we can attribute the existence of that dog to itself. In general this gives rise to the concept of self-ownership. Organisms own themselves because they are self-producing. (And by "own" in this sense I mean that you cannot attribute the dog as part of an elephant, because the elephant did not produce the dog. Attribution in this sense means "credit." The dog can take credit for its own existence because it created itself.)

 

(2) control ownership through work in humans

 

Definition: sociality = peaceful coexistence. The defining feature of social animals (ants, bees, elephants, humans) is that they live peacefully together. They respect each others' boundaries -- boundaries that, as we have seen, are self-produced by the individual. It is thus the individual through work that defines the boundaries of its existence.

 

Definition: peace = non-violence = to respect another beings right to control his own life.

 

Each species has their own unique way of living according to their natures. Often this involves violence towards other beings. It is the leopard's nature to be violent towards antelope and eat them. Thus, the relationship between leopards and antelopes is not social. This is the defining feature of leopards and if they did not behave this way then they would cease to exist.

 

Some animals, however, are (largely) social towards their own kind. (in some cases interspecies relationships can be social too) These are typically very productive individuals. Ants for instance are renowned for their ability to perform heavy duty work and produce impressive nests. Cows are walking factories that are able to transform cellulose in their many stomachs into edible calories. As highly productive beings they do not need to be violent towards each other in order to thrive. Therefore they have through natural selection acquired a peaceful nature. They live in peace together and participate in mutual protection from external dangers. They do this because it is in their mutual self-interest to do so, and this furthers their existence. Thus, it is a defining feature of their biology that they are productive and peaceful towards other productive members of the flock.

 

We humans are also a social species. In fact, we are the most social species on earth because we are so productive. Due to our superior intelligence and ability to abstract and reason we have been able to extend our bodies to also include things that are not metabolically part of our bodies. We produce tools, clothes, houses, space rockets and skyscrapers. These are attributable to the individual creators and since we are by nature a social species we respect those attributions. Thus, if I made a house (or bought it with money that I worked for) it is MY house and it is therefore left in peace by the other social members of humanity. I can do with it whatever I want so long as I am peaceful towards others.

 

To summarize, my argument is therefore as follows:

 

- Living beings obtain their existence through work. Therefore work is the key to attribution of existence. ("I built that house, so it's MY creation.")

 

- Some species are social and therefore by nature respect the attributes of their species/tribe members. They live peacefully together.

 

- We humans are such a social, rational species, and it is therefore in our nature to respect the products of the other members of society, including their property. Respect in this sense means allowing them to live in peace and do with their own property as they like so long as they use it in a mutually peaceful manner.

 

This is the biological basis for objective property rights based on labor (Lockean property rights).

 

Sieben:

 

The Pro and I have a lot in common on the surface. We are both classically liberal, believe in self ownership and property rights, etc. We disagree on methodology and reasoning behind these axioms. The debate should be judged based on who can provide the best reasons for their positions, not the positions themselves (since they're basically identical).

 

====PRO CASE====

 

(1) Attribution ownership through work

 

A) Insufficient definition of Life

 

Pro defines a living being as something that is self producing. However, many abiotic things are "self producing", such as contained nuclear reactions [1]. A natural, non man-made example is the sun [2]. Since the sun is not alive, we should disregard pro's definition of life.

 

B) Infinite Regression of Self Creation

 

I would argue that no man created himself, but was created by another man, who in turn was created by another man, etc. Therefore, under Pro's logic, no man existing today owns himself because no one was the agent of their own creation.

 

C) Performative Contradiction of Self Creation

 

If I create myself, then I exist. But by definition, I do not exist before I am created. Therefore, I cannot create myself, and, according to Pro, this means I cannot own myself.

 

D) Self Creation is Irrelevant

 

We can imagine life forms that do not reassemble themselves. They either do not decay, or simply die without repairing themselves in any way. From hypothesis, rights should apply to living beings, but according to Pro, they do not even own themselves because no work is required to sustain their being.

 

(2) Control Ownership Through Work in Humans

 

A) Rights are Anti-Social

 

The point of having a theory of rights is to guide dispute resolution. State Communists do not become Neo-Lockean Capitalists while playing Monopoly. If a privilege is granted unanimously and voluntarily, it does not become a natural right. In fact, rights explicitly guide when you can use violence. In this respect, they are anti-social.

 

B) Argument from Biological Happenstance

 

Pro thinks that because we are biologically social, we automatically respect eachother's creations.

 

i) True or false, this only demonstrates that human beings have a preference. It does not build the case for natural rights.

 

ii) Human beings are not always social. We attack each other frequently [3] [4]. Following Pro's argumentum ad populum, we would conclude that there are no rights because every conceivable right has been violated at some point in history.

 

iii) Anti-social humans can still have theories of mutual respect. Even if people are narrowly self interested, they can still respect each other's rights out of pragmatism and self preservation. This is how psychopaths are able to navigate society [5].

 

3) Mixing Labor with Nature

 

Pro did not explicate a theory of appropriation, only of creation. Since I cannot actually create land, this would seem to imply that I can never own it. Fair enough, but the Lockean Theory of Homesteading advances the labor theory of property [6], and I would be remiss in my duty if I did not critique it.

 

Simply, the theory is just a bad metaphor. In reality, we do not see little bits of "Farmer John" mixed into soil.

 

But even if we did? So what? The purpose of property rights is to exclude others from use. So why can I exclude you from using a resource just because I am mixed in with it? As Robert Nozick pointed out, you can do work on the whole ocean if you pour a can of soup in it, but do you come to own the whole ocean? Can you exclude everyone from its use? Of course not. So "mixing" is utterly irrelevant.

 

===== Con Case =====

 

1) Theory of Self Ownership

 

A theory is an argument. That is, it is intended to convince someone to agree of their own volition. Therefore, one cannot coherently argue against the consent of others. For example, if I convince you to become a slave, you will be a "voluntary slave", which is a contradiction in terms. As such, I can never coherently argue for slavery. If I try, I will only succeed in convincing you to perform voluntary labor.

 

This does not demonstrate that self ownership is a metaphysical underpinning of the universe, but it does show that it flows organically and necessarily from argumentation.

 

2) Extension of Self Ownership

 

Ownership can be extended only as far as the self ownership principle. Actions are an extension of the self, and as such, actions which do not conflict with other "selfs" are protected by self ownership.

 

For example, if I begin farming unused land, no one has a right to stop me. I have a right to stop other people from interfering with me, because they'd be attacking me for doing something peaceful. Once we view farming as an ongoing process of cultivating, harvesting, and utilizing crops, it becomes clear why others can be excluded. Someone who takes my crops is interfering with my farming, my actions.

 

This view of ownership makes a lot more sense, because rights are extended OVER property, rather than somehow being mixed into it.

 

It is also strictly non-aggressive, and unmaterialistic. Two people can use the same physical object without interfering with each other. For example, radio waves can be broadcast over and through the land I am farming without any conflict.

 

===Conclusion===

 

Pro's conception of self ownership is accidental, stemming from the happy coincidence that most organisms grow by constantly creating new cells. The Voters should prefer my derivation of self ownership because it appears naturally in argumentation. This is why it is a natural right.

 

Even if Pro is right about the biological justification for rights, my use-theory of ownership is entirely compatible with "human nature". It is very similar to Lockean Homesteading, except it stems rationally from self ownership. It is less arbitrary in that one cannot own land or the ocean merely by spilling some soup in it. For practical and philosophical reasons, Voters should also prefer the use-theory of ownership.

 

Onar Åm:

 

(1) Attribution ownership through work

 

A) Insufficient definition of Life

 

Con claims my definition of life is insufficient because there are examples that fit the definition of life that are typically not categorized as life such as the sun and nuclear reactions. All these examples, however, fit into a broader category of phenomena which includes life, namely Dissipative Structures. [1] Although all living beings are dissipative structures, not all dissipative structures are alive. Something is missing in all other kinds of self-sustaining processes that is present in the living. This is the fact that it creates its own boundary and that it acts to maintain its cohesion through energy dissipation (i.e. work). Nuclear reactions do not fit the bill since they do not generate their own boundary. The sun has a well-defined spherical boundary, but this boundary is not self-produced through work. It is imposed on it extrinsically by gravity. As such the sun resembles the Benard Cell [2] which is organized from without. Life on the other hand is organized from within. It produces its own boundary.

 

B) Infinite regression

 

Although we are partially created by other beings through reproduction, this is just an initial process. Once started we *continuously* create ourselves. If this process stops even for a second the process of death and decay immediately starts. Therefore we may say that the organism is continuously mixing its labor with itself in the process of self-creation. It is created anew continuously.

 

C) Performative Contradiction of Self Creation

 

An organism needs to be bootstrapped, but once an organism exists it does so by creating itself. Childhood can be thought of as this initial bootstrapping period, and only when we are adults do we fully create and sustain ourselves and have full ownership of our bodies.

 

D) Self-creation is Irrelevant

 

Life that does not continuously self-produce cannot exist. A defining characteristic of all living beings is that they have two fundamental possible states: dead or alive. Living beings can be destroyed. Living beings have something to lose (their lives) and therefore have to act to survive. Existence *requires* work. If not, they are not living beings. It is this requirement of self-production that is the biological basis of *values*. Definition: a value is that which we act to gain or keep. Only living beings have values, because only living beings can die. Their primary value is their own life, which they act to gain or keep.

 

As a corollary of the mortality of living beings it also follows that life MUST be self-reproducing as well as self-producing. Self-reproduction in combination with self-production is the only viable strategy for long-term existence. Any living being is therefore overwhelmingly likely to be an offspring and to require continuous work to stay alive. If not they will not be living beings, but something else.

 

(2) Control Ownership Through Work in Humans

 

A) Rights are antisocial

 

Agreed. Rights means what you can legitimately use violence for. However, violence is not the normal conduct of humans. We are NORMALLY social, and violence (in self-defense) is the exception. It is therefore still correct to say that humans are a social species.

 

B) Argument from Biological Happenstance

 

There is nothing automatic about social behavior, but this is what is NATURAL for humans.

 

i) natural rights are rights that build on what is NATURAL for humans. Therefore the fact that we by NATURE are social beings does indeed build a case for natural rights.

 

ii) occasional anti-social behavior in social animals does occur, but it is not NORMAL. It is not what our nature dictates as natural. That some rights have been violated at some point in history is irrelevant, because natural rights is a theory about what is NORMAL and NATURAL for humans to use violence for. Hence the term "natural" rights as opposed to exceptional or artificial rights.

 

3) Mixing Labor with Nature

 

When we eat we appropriate land (atoms). They then become part of us through the toil of creating something of value to us. (our body)

 

Pouring soup into the ocean is not to mix one's labor with the natural state for the purpose of value creation. As discussed previously all living beings are mortal and therefore have values (that which they act to gain or keep) in order to exist and thrive. They do work because they value it. Pouring soup into the ocean does not fit the bill.

 

=== Con Case ===

 

1) theory of self-ownership

 

Theories and rationality do not require one to convince others of their truth. Robinson Crusoe could certainly think of correct theories and behave rationally while all alone on an island. Con is only correct if one needs to *argue* for one's theory, but in what circumstances does this occur? In rational *social* species. Which came first? Sociality or rationality? Evolution says sociality, so Cons argument assumes that peaceful coexistence is already part of our genes and nature.

 

2) Extension of Self-Ownership

 

Action alone is not sufficient to establish ownership, and it is easy to demonstrate. Suppose I build a statue, because I want to. When I have finished making the statue I have stopped acting on it. It just stands there. Why shouldn't then someone be allowed to take that statue once I'm finished with it? Another example is a cabin that I build. Once I am finished building it, it is not mine according to Con. It is only if I continue acting on it that it is mine. So I need to start using it to live in. But it's a summer cabin so I only stay there for two months a year. Why then shouldn't anyone else be allowed to use the cabin while I'm not using it? Indeed, there are a lot of things I don't use most of the time. I have several toilets that are idle most of the time. Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to enter my home to use my toilets when I don't use them (assuming they cause no harm to it and replace toilet paper, clean up afterwards etc.)?

 

Human action does not make sense other than in one context: values. Values are in turn something that is produced by the organism and thereby become PART of the organism, either as a body or in the case of humans also as property. I am thus not opposed to actions playing an important part in property (values = that which we ACT to gain or keep), but

the full context must be value creation that gives rise to ownership. Farming land qualifies, whereas pouring soup into the ocean does not.

 

-----

It is not an accident that all living beings are self-producing. That is the way it MUST be for all living beings. Otherwise they are not alive.

 

The use theory is very closely related to the Lockean property right theory of labor, because use requires action and action requires labor. The Lockean property rights based on labor for the purpose of value creation makes more sense because it does not look at actions in isolation, but on the overarching purpose of the actions in relation to the organism as a whole. When an organism expends energy it is with its own life as a stake. Those actions need to contribute to the replenishment of the organism and its energy store, otherwise it dies. That is why we humans need to have security of property. We need to know that we are not wasting our resources when we build something, and that it is stolen from us or destroyed once we are finished. We therefore need to *control* the *fruits* of our own *labor* for the furtherment of our own lives.

 

Sieben:

 

1) Attribution Ownership Through Work

 

A) Insufficient Definition of Life

 

Pro further complicates his definition of life by invoking dissipative structures. He then goes on to say that even this is an insufficient condition for life, and that things need to generate their own boundary… and even though the sun has a well defined, generated boundary, "gravity" is supposedly acting on it to keep it together, therefore the sun is not alive.

 

Well, I have news. I do not keep myself together through willpower. Charged forces keep me together [1]. Charged forces keep rocks together. Etc etc… So I don't generate my own boundary, electromagnetism does. According to Pro, I am not alive.

 

EXTENSION – even if you buy Pro's definition of life, it does not imply self ownership rights. If Insects and Ameobas own themselves, then we're in trouble because we squish them all the time.

 

Indeed, his analysis is backwards. He begins by assuming that living things have agency and are able to create themeslves. In reality, many living things don't have agency or the capacity to reason. It is THIS quality, and this quality alone, that is the source of natural rights. Advanced scientific words elucidate nothing.

 

B) Infinite Regression

 

Pro admits that we are created by other beings, and that AFTER we are born, we continue to create ourselves. That's fine, but Pro thinks that ownership stems from creation… and if parents create the child, then by Pro's logic, that means parents OWN the child. This results in a world where everybody is owned by someone else, who is in turn owned etc… which causes another infinite regression to pop up.

 

C) Performative Contradiction of Self Creation

 

Pro concedes this point but for some reason thinks that adults have fully created themselves, and therefore own themselves. This is obviously false because large numbers of people have helped me reach adulthood. Parents, farmers, doctors, etc… So all of society is mixed in with me. By Pro's logic, this means society owns me.

 

D) Self Creation is Irrelevant

 

Pro goes off on a pseudo-philosophical tangent here. He basically doesn't think you can be counted as "alive" if you don't reproduce, regenerate cells, or die. I'll just accept this definition, and continue my argument that life is completely irrelevant to a discussion of rights. Only agency and the capacity to reason. So if we build a robot with a human's brain in it, it can't have kids, regenerate itself, or "die" in the conventional sense of the term, it can still have rights.

 

(2) Control Ownership Through Humans

 

A) Rights are antisocial

 

Pro concedes this point. He goes on to say that humans don't normally use violence… but that would mean that ANY RIGHTS are AGAINST human nature, since they require violence to enforce. So following Pro, humans have no natural rights because they are naturally peaceful.

 

B) Argument from Biological Happenstance

 

Pro says there's nothing automatic about social behaviour, but its still natural… which kind of confuses me because, as I used the terms, I meant them to describe stuff that happens on its own.

 

i) So here is Pro's big slight of hand. He uses "natural" in "natural rights" to mean the same thing as "biological". Even if you buy that, his argument still fails from the Antisocial discourse above.

 

The term "natural rights" is used to mean something UNIVERSAL [2]. Pro's whole case is predicated on GENETICS. Even if all humans were genetically identical, his theory of rights would still fail to apply to intelligent, rational aliens, non-biological humans, etc.

 

ii) Pro tries to write off human violence as an exception, rather than rule. So now he's further truncating the definition of "natural" to only include things that happen *most of the time*. Modern wars aside, humans have regularly resorted to violence as far back as we have evidence [3].

 

Humans have also probably scratched their behinds since time immemorial, and yet my opponent is not adding it to his list of natural rights... so Pro can't really believe that biology is the source of rights.

 

iii) DROPPED, reprinted:

 

"Anti-social humans can still have theories of mutual respect. Even if people are narrowly self interested, they can still respect each other's rights out of pragmatism and self preservation."

 

3) Mixing Labor with Nature

 

Pro adds another criterion to ownership, namely that it must create value. Since value is subjective, this doesn't mean much. Pouring soup into the ocean could mean A LOT to me. So according to Pro, this would mean I own the ocean.

 

Pro tries to deflect this by making the point blank claim that soup+ocean != value… why this does not create value is never explained.

 

====Con Case====

 

1) Theory of Self Ownership

 

Pro badly misunderstands this point. I do not assume that self ownership is part of our nature. Indeed, the communal lifestyle of hunter gatherer tribes more closely resembles communism. Self ownership and property rights are weird.

 

The point is that it is impossible to argue against self ownership, because self ownership is implicitly assumed by the telos of argumentation – i.e., the consent of the audience. Since Pro and I are in an argument, self ownership must show up implicitly whether we like it or not. In this way it is "natural". There is no getting around it. Genetic engineering would not change this fact.

 

2) Extension of Self Ownership

 

Pro points out that once you stop acting on things, you no longer own them. He only considers the superficial action such as "building a statue" or "building a cabin", and does not look at the action in broader context. People are engaged in Artisanship and Construction. It is only an intermediate step to create the object. The end of the action is presumably to DO something with it, and usually this requires some sort of exclusion of others.

 

This appropriation is limited to unused and voluntarily transferred resources; else it would conflict with other's similar rights.

 

Pro ignores the core pragmatic difference between our two systems, namely that mine is unmaterialistic. It allows people to use the same resources so long as they do not interfere with each other's activities.

 

So my theory allows radio waves to be broadcast through farm land, and even through people. (In Pro's toilet example, it WOULD be a violation of my use-rights, since one of the uses of my house is to be a secure and private place)

 

Conversely, Pro says that you can exclude anyone from anything you've created, which means he's not cool with radio waves, harmless photons, or even my gravitational field (which I can't help). If he took his theory seriously, he would be allowed to declare war on everyone and everything, because it all impacts his creations SOMEHOW. Thus is the downfall of the materialist approach.

 

=== Conclusion ===

 

Pro has been arguing for natural rights under the assumption that "natural" means "biological". He's wrong because "natural rights" has always meant universal, metaphysical, etc. It has never depended on genetics. Even if rights were derived biologically, he's given no evidence that peace is biological. Worse still, if humans are peaceful, there can be no natural rights because rights are inherently violent.

 

Con's concept of self ownership is superior because it actually establishes a right that does not depend on biological chance. The extension of self ownership onto the real world is limited only by non-aggression. Since property is not aggressive, it is allowed (but not required) by self ownership.

 

I thank Pro for his promptness and organization. Peace.

Endret 25. oktober 2010 av A_R_I

[nostrum82]

Mener jeg har lest mange skrullete innslag fra Omar Åm på vg.no.

Om jeg husker rett så er han veldig ekstrem antisosialist og prokapitalist?

[RWS]

Er til dels enig med fyren, men ser ikke helt hvordan dette kan gjennomføres over natta liksom... Men systemet vi har i dag er absolutt moden for en revisjon, helt klart... Skjevhetene blir faktisk bare større og større og isteden for aksjon har vi endeløse diskusjoner der ingen er "mann" nok til å skjære i mellom og det ender ofte ut i ingenting... Eller det snikinnføres slik at alle som er i mot egentlig ikke har noe å si... Alt i god "flertaller bestemmer" analogi, uten at flertallet er tilstede i det hele tatt faktisk...

 

Så ja, jeg tror samfunnet hadde hatt godt av en litt mer sort hvit politikk en den grå suppa vi i dag svømmer i... For noen ganger kreves handling og ikke endeløse pratiser der ingenting blir gjort...

[nostrum82]

Har problemer med å følge hans argumentasjon og tankegang da han kontinuelig trekker logiske feilsluttninger. Sieben viste til en del av de.

 

Å kalle Onar Åm en filosofi-ekspert er vel en smule overdrevet?

[Red Frostraven]

Logikken er altså som følger: hver og en eier sitt liv, inkludert tiden sin. Tiden og energien man bruker på å skape noe manifesterer seg i form av produkter, og selv om disse produktene ikke er en fysisk del av den metaboliske kroppen er de like fullt en del av ens liv, en eiendom.

 

Men konsekvensen av dette er at de såkalte sosiale rettighetene også er en form for eiendom. I et sosialdemokrati er det alstå slik at trengende mennesker eier ressurssterke mennesker til en viss grad. Tenk det, i Norge eier du ikke ditt eget liv. Du er eid av fellesskapet.

 

Så det du sier er at arbeidere eier arbeidet sitt, altså marxismens grunntanke?

 

Slik sett så eier større bedrifter mennesker, da de tar av arbeidet til arbeiderene for å lønne dem som administerer og eier -- som ikke nødvendigvis engang gjør et arbeide i bedriften.

[A_R_I]

Å kalle Onar Åm en filosofi-ekspert er vel en smule overdrevet?

 

Nei. Det legger han heller ikke skjul på selv.

 

I am an expert in philosophy

 

Hvis du mener han er dårlig på filosofi, burde det jo være en smal sak for deg å bevise det.

[A_R_I]

Frostraven:

Dere marxister tenker slik, men dere ignorerer det faktum at kapitaleierne eier kapitalen sin. Hvis du ikke ønsker å jobbe for disse, kan du ganske enkelt la være, og starte din egen bedrift.

[nostrum82]

Du liker å dra sluttninger til det ekstreme ser jeg.

 

At det er en overdrivelse å kalle Onar Åm en filosofi ekspert er ikke det samme som å si at han er dårlig på filosofi. Og ditt argument for at han er det er fordi han sier det selv? Selv mener jeg at det minste man kan forvente av en filosofi ekspert er noe så grunnleggende som at vedkommende holder seg unna logiske feilsluttninger.

 

Hva vil du anse som bevis for at han ikke er en filosofi ekspert?

 

Og hva mener du med "dere marxister"?

Endret 26. oktober 2010 av nostrum82

[A_R_I]

Les bloggen hans, og du vil forstå at han er en filosofiekspert.

[nostrum82]

Jeg har lest en del artikler på bloggen hans. Og jo mer jeg leser jo mer sikker blir jeg i min sak. Det minner meg heller om politisk propaganda.

[A_R_I]

Kan du peke på EN feil?

[nostrum82]

We humans are also a social species. In fact, we are the most social species on earth because we are so productive.

 

Vi er den mest sosiale arten (basert på hvilket sosialt aspekt?) FORDI vi er så produktive (produktive med tanke på hva?). Det virker litt absurd å argumentere med at mennesker er den mest sosiale arten FORDI vi er produktive.

 

Kan også vise noen utklipp av det jeg reagerer mest på i en vilkårlig artikkel i bloggen hans (siterer hele avsnitt):

 

 

Overtallsstyre vs liberalisme

Lagret under: filosofi, politikk

 

Jeg skal stoppe her nå selv om jeg kunne ha fortsatt hele kvelden. For å oppsummere: motstanderne av liberalisme kan stort sett bare komme på totalt urealistiske, psykotiske eller ekstremt usannsynlige innvendinger mot liberalisme, mens vi som er motstander av overtallsstyre ikke har noen problemer med å komme på bøttevis av ekte, høyst realistiske og sannsynlige eksempler på forferdelige konsekvenser av denne styreformen, konsekvenser som i de aller fleste tilfeller er mye verre og mye mer omfattende enn selv de verste eksemplene de selv klarer å finne på som konsekvens av liberalismen.

 

...

 

En annen grunn er at de ser på seg selv som fantastiske, briljante, geniale, super-dupermoralske ariske overmennesker som er mye bedre enn alle andre low-life mennesker på jorden. Derfor kan de gjerne erkjenne at overtallsstyre kan føre til store problemer hvis slike som Chavez, Erna Solberg eller Jens Stoltenberg kommer til makten. Problemet er ikke at det er noe galt med selve ideologien og styreformen. Problemet er at Chavez, Solberg og Stoltenberg ikke er superflinke nok. De er ikke like guddommelige superfantastiske vidunderlige bunnløst smørgode supermennesker som dem selv. Hvis bare DE fikk komme til makten, DA ville alt blitt så mye bedre fordi DE ikke kommer til å gjøre de samme feilene som alle andre vel-menende diktatorer før dem har gjort.

 

...

 

Enkelte tilhengere av overtallsmakt slik som Thalgar sier rett ut at overgrep er uunngåelig. Alternativet til flertallsdiktatur er mindretallsdiktatur, og da er det bedre at flertallet får viljen sin enn at mindretallet gjør det. Med andre ord, Thalgar betrakter en kvinne som beskytter seg selv mot gjengvoldtekt for mindretallsdiktatur og anser dette som et større overgrep en gjengvoldtekt for der får jo tross alt flertallet viljen sin. Personlig synes jeg det sier ganske mye om Thalgar at han betrakter det som et overgrep at han og kompisene sine ikke kan få lov til å voldta en forsvarsløs kvinne, men dette er altså i ytterste konsekvens logikken disse menneskene bruker til å rettferdiggjøre massive systematiske overgrep mot mindretallet.

 

...

 

For å være rettferdig finnes det de som faktisk kun er naive, de som ikke vet bedre og har blitt villedet av noen av de supersmarte superfantastiske supermenneskene nevnt ovenfor, men jeg regner med at etter denne bloggposten vil disse erkjenne sine feil og innrømme at alle fantasi-innvendingene mot liberalismen bare er barnemat sammenlignet mot de høyst reelle praktiske og moralske problemene med overtallsstyresettet.

 

 

Se hvor mange treff du får fra denne listen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

[A_R_I]

Jeg ser ingen feil.

[nostrum82]

Men da er det jo ingen vits å diskutere dette videre.

Endret 27. oktober 2010 av nostrum82

[Red Frostraven]

Frostraven:

Dere marxister tenker slik, men dere ignorerer det faktum at kapitaleierne eier kapitalen sin. Hvis du ikke ønsker å jobbe for disse, kan du ganske enkelt la være, og starte din egen bedrift.

 

Så det du sier er at (majoritets-)eierene av en bedrift kan "skatte" av arbeiderene sitt arbeid så lenge de eier majoriteten av bedriften og menneskene arbeider der frivillig?

 

Vel. Det norske folk eier norge.

Majoriteten av det norske folk er majoritets-eierene av landet.

 

For å starte en egen bedrift så må jeg flytte vekk fra venner og familie.

Endret 27. oktober 2010 av Red Frostraven

[stich_it]

Å kalle Onar Åm en filosofi-ekspert er vel en smule overdrevet?

 

Nei. Det legger han heller ikke skjul på selv.

 

I am an expert in philosophy

 

Hvis du mener han er dårlig på filosofi, burde det jo være en smal sak for deg å bevise det.

bare for å påpeke det, det at man selv mener man er ekspert gjør ikke at man faktisk er det.