How do you know you're a person open to reason?

[wufwugy]

Doesn't matter. If it's not wrong in some judgment, even if the details are not known, it means that the wrongness is created by the existence of the law. While that is a reasonable position to take, I disagree with it and I think most others do to.

In my tomato example, do you think the guy who punched the gardener did anything wrong?

[OngBonga]

In my tomato example, do you think the guy who punched the gardener did anything wrong?

Sure he did something wrong. That's my judgement though. Very probably, most neutral observers would agree that this man did something "wrong". But he didn't commit "theft" if there is no law that defines it. Law creates theft, just like law creates murder.

Without law, there is only taking of something which another person claims to be his.

[wufwugy]

Sure he did something wrong. That's my judgement though. Very probably, most neutral observers would agree that this man did something "wrong". But he didn't commit "theft" if there is no law that defines it. Law creates theft, just like law creates murder.

Without law, there is only taking of something which another person claims to be his.

I'm glad you said this, because by the logic you're using, it isn't that law creates theft, but that it codifies theft.

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm glad you said this, because by the logic you're using, it isn't that law creates theft, but that it codifies theft.

Law codifies theft. Law defines theft. Law makes theft.

[wufwugy]

Law codifies theft. Law defines theft. Law makes theft.

If law codifies something, it means the idea exists without codification.

The tomato seeds are doing much more work than you are.

Well I don't think that's an accurate way of putting it, but okay. An ingredient for the argument that it is reasonable to claim that there is some measure of natural ownership of something is that there are many things that would literally not exist except for the efforts and purpose of somebody. Given that our interpretation of ownership derives deeply from this, it is reasonable to claim that a natural ownership, so to speak, is existent.

The guy that punched you and took the tomatoes did nothing wrong. He was able to do it and he got tomatoes for it.

If I kill you in cold blood yet a jury finds me not guilty due to mishandling of evidence by police, did I do nothing wrong?

[a500lbgorilla]

If law codifies something, it means the idea exists without codification.

A lot of ideas exist, more than you could ever imagine. Not all of them mean anything.

Theft didn't become a thing til law gave it the scaffolding. Where the inspiration for law came from, well, that's for the artists to play with.

[wufwugy]

A lot of ideas exist, more than you could ever imagine. Not all of them mean anything.

Theft didn't become a thing til law gave it the scaffolding. Where the inspiration for law came from, well, that's for the artists to play with.

Was the idea behind theft created by the law?

[a500lbgorilla]

Well I don't think that's an accurate way of putting it, but okay. An ingredient for the argument that it is reasonable to claim that there is some measure of natural ownership of something is that there are many things that would literally not exist except for the efforts and purpose of somebody. Given that our interpretation of ownership derives deeply from this, it is reasonable to claim that a natural ownership, so to speak, is existent.

Tomatoes wouldn't exist without your efforts?

Look at you computer. How many people alive and dead did it take to make it? Did the oilmen who pumped the hydrocarbons that become the plastic of the keys own your computer? Do the early theorists of computation own your processor/own your computer? Did that guy that killed himself at Dell/Apple/Lonovo that worked on the design of specifically your machine own it?

Be careful with what you consider ownership.

[wufwugy]

Tomatoes wouldn't exist without your efforts?

These ones wouldn't.

***

I'll take one example here, since the logic regarding one applies to them all

Look at you computer. How many people alive and dead did it take to make it? Did the oilmen who pumped the hydrocarbons that become the plastic of the keys own your computer? Do the early theorists of computation own your processor/own your computer? Did that guy that killed himself at Dell/Apple/Lonovo that worked on the design of specifically your machine own it?

Be careful with what you consider ownership.

Did the oilmen who pumped the hydrocarbons that become the plastic of the keys own your computer?

The oilmen produced the oil in the ways that they produced it. They did not produce the keyboard. The oil that was used for the keyboard was acquired, one way or another. If the oilmen gifted or sold the oil, they would have no ownership of what came after. If the oilmen were wrongfully taken from, they would have a case.

If your post represents the logical path you want to take, be prepared to claim that the first biological organism on Earth, billions of years ago, is responsible for you debating on the internet. Do you think this equivocation of causality at every step in the chain is sensible?

[OngBonga]

I'm glad you said this, because by the logic you're using, it isn't that law creates theft, but that it codifies theft.

Law creates theft because without law, one cannot take something "unlawfully".

[wufwugy]

Law creates theft because without law, one cannot take something "unlawfully".

I'm not talking about taking something unlawfully; I'm talking about taking something wrongfully. Do you agree with the logic that morality is created by law?

[OngBonga]

I'm not talking about taking something unlawfully; I'm talking about taking something wrongfully. Do you agree with the logic that morality is created by law?

No, law is created from morality.

The word "wrongfully" is not how "theft" is defined. It is "unlawful". "Wrongful" is subjective. "Unlawful" is not. That is the critical difference which seemingly eludes you.

[wufwugy]

No, law is created from morality.

The word "wrongfully" is not how "theft" is defined. It is "unlawful". "Wrongful" is subjective. "Unlawful" is not. That is the critical difference which seemingly eludes you.

The difference eludes nobody. Why do you say something is the way it is because the law says so?

[a500lbgorilla]

Doesn't matter. If it's not wrong in some judgment, even if the details are not known, it means that the wrongness is created by the existence of the law. While that is a reasonable position to take, I disagree with it and I think most others do to.

In my tomato example, do you think the guy who punched the gardener did anything wrong?

The tomato seeds are doing much more work than you are.

The guy that punched you and took the tomatoes did nothing wrong. He was able to do it and he got tomatoes for it.

To call it wrong is to try to control the behavior of others. Don't do wrong things, only do right things.

[Savy]

The guy that punched you and took the tomatoes did nothing wrong. He was able to do it and he got tomatoes for it.

To call it wrong is to try to control the behavior of others.

This is true.

Although clearly if you are growing tomatoes and someone keeps taking them you stop wasting your time growing tomatoes leading to neither party having tomatoes hence leaving both parties worse off.

Pretty simple really.

[a500lbgorilla]

This is true.

Although clearly if you are growing tomatoes and someone keeps taking them you stop wasting your time growing tomatoes leading to neither party having tomatoes hence leaving both parties worse off.

Pretty simple really.

One of those parties worse off is you.

When have you chosen personal suffering to make a grander point and how has that worked out for you?

[Savy]

One of those parties worse off is you.

When have you chosen personal suffering to make a grander point and how has that worked out for you?

It isn't personal suffering though you only grow the tomatoes if it is of a net benefit for you to do that, if that scenario doesn't exist you aren't worse off because the potential for what you wanted to do didn't exist in the first place.

It's also worth mentioning that rather than losing all your tomatoes you put more effort into making it less easy for your tomatoes to be taken. All sorts itself out into a nice equilibrium.

[a500lbgorilla]

It isn't personal suffering though you only grow the tomatoes if it is of a net benefit for you to do that, if that scenario doesn't exist you aren't worse off because the potential for what you wanted to do didn't exist in the first place.

It's also worth mentioning that rather than losing all your tomatoes you put more effort into making it less easy for your tomatoes to be taken. All sorts itself out into a nice equilibrium.

Glad the world is and has always enjoyed a nice equilibrium.

[Savy]

Glad the world is and has always enjoyed a nice equilibrium.

Not implied by what I said but ok.

[OngBonga]

This is true.

Although clearly if you are growing tomatoes and someone keeps taking them you stop wasting your time growing tomatoes leading to neither party having tomatoes hence leaving both parties worse off.

Pretty simple really.

Yeah I'm not gonna stop growing tomatoes, I'm just going to be prepared for the next time he comes. If there's no law to protect my ownership of tomatoes, there's no law to protect him from being beaten with a rock.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yeah I'm not gonna stop growing tomatoes, I'm just going to be prepared for the next time he comes. If there's no law to protect my ownership of tomatoes, there's no law to protect him from being beaten with a rock.

Me too. Hey, let's flip this script and just go fuck up these tomatoe thieves.