MORE clarification on UPB (again)?

nelle · Number of posts: 485 Registration date: 2009-02-09

Unbelievable.

http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/t/21307.aspx

So - another attempt at understanding this "slippery" topic.

Danny Shahar · Number of posts: 948 Registration date: 2007-12-30

Ha! He's got the hang of it! Bravo!

QuestEon · Number of posts: 552 Registration date: 2008-03-25

Danny Shahar wrote:

Ha! He's got the hang of it! Bravo!

I should just delete my ongoing series and replace it on my Web site with this thread. It really says it all.

_________________
-Q.E.

nelle · Number of posts: 485 Registration date: 2009-02-09

You better hurry and get a copy of it before the thread gets locked or moved to a premium forum.

Wink

Bigus Dickus · Number of posts: 362 Location: Brazil Registration date: 2008-06-06

One thing I've been thinking recently about UPB... for instance, who are these mythical people proposing these ethical theories according to which it is right for one person to steal but wrong for another? That is not at all how people defend the state -generally, they do so by defining taxation as not stealing. This can be done through a number of ways, such as defining government property of stuff as legitimate.

UPB takes for granted the legitimacy of property that Stefantologists endorse, and just runs roughshod over the whole issue of legitimacy of property.

Bigus Dickus · Number of posts: 362 Location: Brazil Registration date: 2008-06-06

Molyneux in UPB wrote:

Thus it must be the case – both logically and practically – that we have full ownership over our own
bodies, and over the effects of our bodies, in terms of external property. We do not need a homesteading theory, or other “just acquisition” approaches to justify property rights – they are justified because anybody who acts in any way, shape or form – including arguing – is axiomatically exercising 100% control over his own body, and “homesteading” both oxygen and sound waves in order to make his case.

Thus, by combining this axiomatic reality with UPB, we can easily understand that since anyone debating property rights is exercising 100% control over his own property, the only question is whether or not property rights vary from individual to individual – a question definitively settled by the axiomatic fact of self-ownership, as well as the UPB framework. Any moral proposition must be universal and consistent, and this is how we also know that everyone has 100% property rights.

Huh? I thought there were no such things as rights...

Conrad · Subject: Re: MORE clarification on UPB (again)? Thu Jul 16, 2009 3:13 pm

excellent catch

also, the original poster just pointed out another big problem in response to Stefan

_________________
My Blog

Bigus Dickus · Number of posts: 362 Location: Brazil Registration date: 2008-06-06

for christs sake, some of the stuff on that forum is on par with the ontological argument for god.

Stewart · Number of posts: 1186 Location: Boston, MA Registration date: 2008-04-03

It's truly some of the worst philosophy I've ever read.