abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You already lost one to @Justin-case in this thread and you always come out of these exchanges looking almost as ridiculous as you actually are. Really want to proceed with this?
How many people understand the US Constitution?
- Thread starter MadMel
- Start date
DiogenesTheWiser
Well-Known Member
A gang, government, or some powerful authority that backs up my own personal claims of ownership.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I must have missed that one.
Actually I think the history of these exchanges is they dissolve into personal attacks after I ask questions that others can't answer without revealing their duplicity.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Thank you for the response. Interesting.
Couldn't a central authority also be responsible for negating ownership of something ?
DiogenesTheWiser
Well-Known Member
You've got to admit that your questions oftentimes are riddled with poor word choices and many are fallaciously complex.
DiogenesTheWiser
Well-Known Member
Without some central authority, the issue of ownership becomes moot.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'll try to dumb them down.
I'm curious which questions you've found fallacious ?
DiogenesTheWiser
Well-Known Member
The ones that I ignore--there are so many--sorry, didn't keep a list. Your most commonly committed fallacy is of equivocation: http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Equivocation.html
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Not in every instance.
WITH a central authority, ownership can be and is limited to the diktats of the central authority.
I think that is self evident.
DiogenesTheWiser
Well-Known Member
Ok, so not in every instance. Can you provide an example to back up your claim?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Okay. I'll try to be more direct.
I think government is a logical fail, in that it assumes your consent with or without it actually being given and then it says "give us money or we'll hurt you, so we can protect you from people who will threaten you".
Would you agree that's about how it works ?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Eminent domain.
DiogenesTheWiser
Well-Known Member
No, I wouldn't agree with that at all.
DiogenesTheWiser
Well-Known Member
Who's claiming the eminent domain. Usually the government. If there were no government, the issues of ownership and property are moot. These issues would not apply because survival would be humans' only goals. See Hobbes.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So, are you saying without government (as a central authority) that property ownership would not or could not exist ?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Which part is inaccurate?
DiogenesTheWiser
Well-Known Member
You stated an opinion about government, so it's not a question of accuracy that I disagree with. Rather, I disagree with your characterization of government.
DiogenesTheWiser
Well-Known Member
I'm saying that without a government, gang, or some source of power legitimizing claims to property ownership, the issue would be moot. In other words, property ownership would not carry the same value.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If an opinion is demonstrably true, would it be accurate to say those who hold a differing opinion are believing something that is false ?
How would you characterize government different than I have?
DiogenesTheWiser
Well-Known Member
Your characterization of gov. is not representative of the sum total of all forms of government. Governments, for example, bestow rights upon people...rights that would not exist without government. For example, property rights.