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

[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]

Was the idea behind theft created by the law?

Theft didn't exist until law made it so. Hints, whispers, shadows on the wall do not make a thing.

[wufwugy]

Theft didn't exist until law made it so. Hints, whispers, shadows on the wall do not make a thing.

I'm not asking about that.

I'm asking why morals and customs exist only when law codifies them.

[OngBonga]

I'm not asking about that.

I'm asking why morals and customs exist only when law codifies them.

Morals exist outside of law.

I don't need to be bound by law to hold the opinion that rape is "immoral".

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm not asking about that.

I'm asking why morals and customs exist only when law codifies them.

Customs, to me, exist based on the early successful decisions of society's executives. They commanded, people followed, it worked, and so customs were born.

Morals, to me, are a thing to be resisted. I don't understand them and I sense that they're methods for controlling my behavior. So on this front, I really can't say anything worth hearing.

[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?

[a500lbgorilla]

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?

I was trying to put those words in your mouth. Ownership becomes a funny thing when people 'touch' the product of your efforts. Does the tomato farmer have any claim to the capriese salad you're eating? Legally, no, but still, by your own words, those tomatoes were his.

edit: PS, I will go there.

PPS, everything you say about the oilman makes the case of the necessity of law.

[wufwugy]

I was trying to put those words in your mouth. Ownership becomes a funny thing when people 'touch' the product of your efforts. Does the tomato farmer have any claim to the capriese salad you're eating? Legally, no, but still, by your own words, those tomatoes were his.

It's only funny if a prerequisite is taken by force. If it's voluntary, it's not funny because it means the oilmen placed a value on their product and them receiving that value from the keyboard maker (usually by payment) represents their contribution. This means the person who uses the oil to create the keyboard has accounted for the ingredient of oil.

PPS, everything you say about the oilman makes the case of the necessity of law.

I haven't argue against effectiveness or even necessity of law.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's only funny if a prerequisite is taken by force. If it's voluntary, it's not funny because it means the oilmen placed a value on their product and them receiving that value from the keyboard maker (usually by payment) represents their contribution. This means the person who uses the oil to create the keyboard has accounted for the ingredient of oil.



I haven't argue against effectiveness or even necessity of law.

How do you place a value on something? What are the mechanics of doing that?