This again is not an objective argument, it's a personal argument about me. What protects your right to own things is the law. That is an objective fact.
The law does not protect my
right to own things. As I said, it provides legal recourse if someone steals or attempts to steal it or otherwise attempts to separate my property from me.
Neither the law nor the government determines ownership. The law and government
recognize ownership when it is done legally and is properly documented. From there, they have the responsibility to provide for prosecution and return of property if it is taken.
Of course it does. We build on to what came before.
No. Property is not acquired this way today.
I said that already, taxes and social safety nets. But I'm not asking you tell me if my plans feel fair to you, I'm asking what you think fairness even is.
Tell me first how sharing wealth will be done. Remember, the proposal to change is yours, not mine.
It would be pointless of me to give you my idea for fairness because all you’ll say is: “THAT’s SUBJECTIVE!!”. The purpose of you’re asking is to set me up for that very response and I’m not playing that game.
I don't care about your concerns. I'm asking you to clarify your argument. What does fairness mean to you?
Irrelevant. I made no argument, you did. What’s more, your proposal is in the interest of what you see as fair, among others things. I merely expressed my concern or desire that it be done fairly.
But you say you don’t care about my concerns so this is a waste of time.
I said opinions are based on feelings and objectivity based in fact. I was explaining the difference but yes, opinions are feelings. If you don't think they're feelings then what exactly do you think they are?
You tell me, you’re the one with two different descriptions of the relationship between opinions and feelings.
I’ve already said they are based on feelings so there’s no point repeating it.
Whatever you have conceptualized is going to be subjective to you. It's all happening inside your own head. Objectivity is simply describing what we observe in nature.
I conceptualized nothing. Fairness and morality are concepts created by societies and cultures long ago. We just continue to adopt them as previous generations have done.
Im trying to tell you that I don't even know what that means. Fairness isn't an objective measurement. We all don't agree on what is fair so how do you intend to use it as a measuring stick or guide post?
You tell me. What guidepost are you using to inform your ideas of sharing wealth?
That's like everyone taking measurements with their feet. My foot ain't your foot. We're all going to have different numbers just as we all have a different idea of what is fair because it's our own sentiment that determines it.
None of this addresses the reasons societies create laws.
Here's how fairness is defined by dictionary.com
Impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination.
So let me ask you, are laws against children voting fair? They are objectively discriminatory.
Children would vote for Santa Claus for president. That’s why we don’t let them vote.
In fact that defintion doesn't make much sense to me. What is just is subjective and we can't treat people impartialy. We are as incapable of acting outside our subjective perspectives and sentiments as we are turning on our xray vision. It's just not within our nature. There is fairness of a sort within a certain context but we won't all agree whether that context matters. For instance there is an argument to be made that laws against anyone under 18 voting are fair in that they apply to everyone under 18 equally. But again that's just one perspective. Does it change anything objectively for that kid that you're disenfranshinzing all 17 year olds rather than just them? Does equality provide any objective value? They are still disenfranshinzed regardless. Does whether or not they're equally disenfranchised change anything for them objectively speaking? In this instance legal equality is still worth nothing.
This is a lot of philosophical tripe to justify taking away the right to earn as much money as we’d like.
Laws are created to promote self interest. Kings want to rule over people for their own desires, we vote democratically for representatives who will craft laws that we desire and we desire to protect ourselves from the political musings of 17 year olds. Fairness is an expression of your lack of self awareness to this reality.
Do not pretend that your views on slavery and slavers are not rooted in your own ideas of fairness and morality.
That's not what I'm saying. I think you're confusing different arguments. The first one, the one I was attempting to have with the libertarian is ultimatelty about what is objectively real verses what is only subjectively real. People objectively exist. That we are each capable of independent thought and action (barring some physical or mental disability) is objectively true. And that private ownership of property, land and resources is only ever subjectively true and imposed on others by force and threats of force, either individually or collectively by warlords, colonizers, dictators, gangs and governments. Given these truths only force to protect your life and liberty can be said to be objectively in self defense. Force to protect ownership of property is not defense of your objective self. It is force against others to impose your will.
Irrelevant. I said that laws were created for a reason. You said:
“It matters to me that fairness isn't an objectively real thing because when you tell me laws were created to promote fairness it is effectivity saying nothing.”
You’re fixated on subjectivism even though you know we have reasons for creating laws, subjective or not.
The arguments around the reasons for creating law are all entirely subjective.
Irrelevant. The subjectivity of laws and the reasons behind them is not in question. The point is that we create laws for a reason.
I'm sure you do have your reasons and I have my reasons and my neighbor has their reasons and so on and so on. That's a less interesting argument to me. I don't care about your reasons. I don't care about my neighbors reasons. I don't care about anyone else's reasons (other than those of my loved ones) beyond how those reasons help me obtain my goals.
So why are you here bothering to tell us your goals?
The last argument is about morality and whether it is objectively real. While I argued earlier that only force in defense of your person and freedom can objectively be said to be self defense, whether or not any use of force, including self defense or any action for that matter, is morally just is entirely subjective. There is no objective truth to the wrongness of slaughter or slavery or rape or murder, just subjective sentiment. You feeling that slaughter and slavery and rape and murder are wrong has no greater or lesser objective value than someone who feels those things are a good time.
As I said before I don't care about your feelings or opinions and I don't know why you'd care about the particulars of mine. I'm only interested in whether or not you can find some objective fault with any of the arguments above. The problem with that is that you don't even seem to understand what objective value is.
You expect an objective counter to your subjective views on sharing wealth?
I think you’re the one who’s confused here. If your views are entirely subjective as you say, and my views are entirely subjective, there IS no objective counter.
And? Does this negate the fact that we have reasons?
A subjective one. I think they were deplorable mutants, they're loved ones probably thought they were very fine people. Objectively both of these sentiments have equal value.
Then why do you keep lecturing me about fairness?
So again, why are you lecturing me on fairness?
Then they have no value as well. I'm only interested in arguments with value.
Yet your entire argument is subjective. Therefore it has no value, correct?
Objective arguments that you can't prove might as well be sentiment for the objective value that they hold.
Subjective opinion and an ignorant understanding of what the word means in different contexts.
In the context of argument and debate, Webster’s defines objective as:
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
It says nothing about being proof or fact.
An objective argument or claim is an attempt at stating something that can be verified as true or false or of a particular objective value.
No, it is not. At least, not always. Facts are often cited to support an objective argument but that does not render the argument as fact or provable.
As an example, in a debate on the Biblical Flood, I may cite the fact that we have found no scientific evidence to support a belief in a global flood in the past.
This is objective fact and an objective argument but it does not prove there wasn’t.
It's doesn't have to be a fact because it could just be a bad argument. The moon is made of cheese is an objective claim, separate philosophically from the statement the moon is beautiful.
No, it is not an objective claim because it is not based on any evidence other than what the moon
looks like. In that sense it is just as subjective as the claim the moon is beautiful.
As it happens, this claim is verifiable one way or the other but it is still subjective as it is based on feelings.
The latter is expressing how some object makes the person feel and the former is an attempt to describe the objectively real properties that make up something else. These attempts can be verified as true or false. Your feelings have no objective value and their subjective value is whatever you want it to be.
Without objective evidence for or against, feelings are why someone would claim the moon is made of cheese in the first place.
So if you won't use force to defend your claims on property that means you're not going to fight anyone or call the cops on anyone who walks into your home uninvited? Raids your fridge? Refuses to leave?
First of all, I didn’t say I would not use force. Secondly, there’s a limit to the force that one can use to simply get a tresspasser off his property. Unless of course he is threatening violence. In fact, police prefer you call them in any case.
Third, if someone does tresspass, I don’t need to defend my claim on my property, that’s a matter of record. Besides, he won’t be there to challenge my claim anyway.
Mutual trade between everyone? What do I care if you paid someone else for the property? What does that have to do with me? You didn't pay me for exclusive rights.
Are you saying you don’t respect my claim to my property because I didn’t pay
you for it?
I mean an objective use of force. Are you or is someone using force against another person on your behalf. I don't care about your reasons or claims until you prove they have some objective value. Legal value is subjective and subjective to change with the whims of society just as they were imposed by them.
It sounds like you want my property given to you.
That's ironic. I talk about objective truth and fact. You're the one attempting to craft a meaningful moral distinction between what you would use the force of law and government for and what I would. I rightfully don't believe one exists.
I did not attempt
“to craft a meaningful moral distinction between what you would use the force of law and government for and what I would.“ That’s utter bullshit.
We are disagreeing on the nature of force in the context of law and property ownership. That’s it.
Objective moral truth is the pseudo-philosophical nonsense.
I said nothing about morality or it being objective.
It's protected by the force of law. For some reason force isn't force to you. For some reason you think trying to justify your subjective use of force is a sufficient counter argument to my objective claim that you use force to impose your subjective will.
Irrelevant. You asked me to list factors and considerations you ignore and I told you I had been all along.
You only imagine I have because you're incapable of stepping out of the cocoon of moral make believe that you've encased yourself in. I don't even understand why you'd think I'd have to justify my opinions to anyone as if they need others approval. I only have to justify my actions to the legal system because they force me to.
Jesus fucking Christ. When I say “justification” in this context I only mean that these are the reasons you have for your views on sharing wealth. I told you this already and even gave an example where you said you wanted to “mitigate the worst outcomes…”.
This is one of the reasons - or justifications - for the desire to share wealth, is it not?
