We're basically saying the same thing in these posts, right?

So I'm obviously a dumb-dumb, because of the failure of my imagination to see how this principle operates in society in practice. Could you provide a specific example, i.e. person x takes action y with results z please?

Edit: +1 to Cuepee's post above re: property rights & force.

Seems that way to me.

I hope you see your views are scattered and inconsistent and you continually skip over questions and issues you do not want or cannot address.

I would appreciate you addressing my hypothetical and how morality, "that all people have", and not force might govern it?

"Private Property" by default intonates force.

Once you add the word 'Private" to an item it is a statement that 'this is mine and not yours'.

That statement has zero meaning if you cannot or will not defend it. If you pick up an item and claim it as your private property but any other individual in your society can walk up and take and consider it their private property, and so on and so on, and no one defends it (force) then it is communal property by default and not private property.

It's not a conversation that can be simple. Groups with very similar (even identical if we wanted to idealise it) morality can behave very differently in different circumstances. Not least but by no means only, because morality alone doesn't determine how we act.

It's not normally pretty.

I'm pointing out that the concept of property rights is not founded on force. I agree it's not a very mind blowing claim as it's ****ing obviously true.

Sure. Can't disagree with that.

It's just pointing out that the vast majority of the time, who owns what is not enforced by force. It's not disputed at all.

Of course but when we try to resolve these disputes we tend to consider who the rightful owner is. That is not predicated on force, it's predicated on our understanding of who rightfully owns what. That may sometimes rely on the law but again we have an understanding of good laws which themselves are based on our understanding of what is right.

A border is a tough analogy. It's a political construct that's so far divorced from property. Even so many people have a strong sense of 'my country' that doesn't come from force (a sense stretched too far imo but none the less very real)

My understanding is that I rightfully own "your" wallet. You say I don't, and the court says I don't and I say "nah" and go and take it. What now?

They really aren't. The discussion is a bit incoherent with questions being asked that aren't related to what is being said

I'm not sure which question you don't think I addressed in that long answer I just gave.

Pretty sure I don't think your hypothetical will be addressed without force but pleas raise it again if you think I've said it would be.

Force

Really confused if you were expecting a different answer.

Ding ding we have a winner.

And if your point is that it doesn't happen very often - well, no ****, it would happen a lot more often if the threat of force weren't there.

Hooray! We've agreed on an undisputed point we always agreed on.

A lot more often. We can agree on that as well. never been disputed.

What else do we agree on and where do you think our views diverge?

Well, not so sure about that. You said "this property enforced by force is partly true but it's also in large part nonsense." Others and I are saying it's not nonsense, it's a fundamental principle.

Not sure. Can you respond to my latest post about the contract/consent issue (#552)?

I think some of you are confusing morality with instinct.

Sometimes it's enforced by force (or the threat of force) but often it isn't. Even when it is, we have a concept of property that isn't itself determined by that force. Then we have an understanding of good laws that help enforce the right thing. The right thing is not usually determined by that force.

There is no implication that we all agree on what the right thing is or that there's some objective answer as to what the right thing is.

No example in real life that I can think of because the state reserves enforcement powers and doesn't allow us to contract away some legal rights (all very good things)

So we have to wing it a lot. Here's an example from the construction industry.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreute...ge=true&bhcp=1

I hope we can imagine there being more than one such authority and the one that applies to us being specified in the contact that we enter into.

Then if we wanted to we go further and add enforcement. I'm not sure this is conceptually difficult - is it?

Lol Chez, struggling, I see. The threat of force is what matters, and it's foundational. Otherwise it would just be a free-for-all with everyone running around doing whatever they please.

Your argument is basically saying something along the lines of "CCTV cameras in stores are overkill, because shoplifting is not that big a problem". No **** Sherlock, it's not that big a problem because people are afraid of the consequences of getting caught. Take away the likelihood of getting caught or the consequences and it becomes a big problem.

I was after a hypothetical example, not a real life example. Just a demonstration of what you're talking about in concrete terms, because quite frankly I'm pretty sure I still don't get it.

If you are proposing that individual members of society can opt in and out of adhering to that society's rules at will, I would say that it's conceptually pretty difficult and fundamentally different to your examples from industry.

Primarily this is because adhering to society's rules is a burden on the individual, and, in game-theoretic terms, without the threat of punishment, it would unilaterally benefit a single individual to deviate and choose noncompliance; however, if many individuals choose the same strategy, then all individuals in that society suffer. Therefore we need an incentive for individuals to follow the rules, and that incentive is the threat of punishment if they deviate.

Not struggling at all thanks.

No it isn't. Not remotely the argument.


It would become a big problem. Again that's not in dispute.

That may be why you don't take whatever you fancy whenever you fancy it. Frankly I don't believe you but it sure ain't close to true all of the time for all people.

Good

No I'm not saying that at all. The idea is a society that was built around the contractual rules and had no (or fewer) other rules. It's not about opting in out of any society rules.

This is quintessence of Chez, it is his nature and he has no morality when it comes to intellectual honesty.

Any system predicated on the notion that people are fundamentally "good" is doomed to failure and childlike in its naivety Most people will act in their own self-interest most of the time, and any society humans build needs to take that into account.

Ok, I am going to ask you one last time to provide a concrete example of what you're talking about, because I still don't understand it in the abstract terms you are using to explain it. An example of the form "individual member of society x takes action(s) y with result(s) z", or something equally tangible. A hypothetical one. If you don't, I'm giving up on this line of inquiry, because either I am incapable of understanding it or you are incapable of explaining it.

Now we're talking. This is where a more sensible conversation on morality normally goes and maybe later we can have a solid discussion on selfishness and self-interest. Altruism doesn't exist but selfishness doesn't mean not caring about others.

For here I hope we can agree that relying on people being good is clearly not enough.

Fine, but you seem to be contradicting your own points quite a lot ITT.

We're certainly struggling because I don't know where the confusion is.

It's the same as now except when X signs a contract to rent or ..., the contract specifies which court will adjudicate disputes along with the enforcement mechanism. That will include what we consider criminal acts when the enforcement arm replaces the state police and the specified court/etc replaces the state prosecutor/criminal court.

There's no opting out. The state court/police/etc do not exist.