P.S. Nonny's right. "Universalizability" isn't even close to being a word. But I humored you anyway.

'universalizability' = the capacity to be universalized

universalize = generalize so as to apply to everybody or everything within a certain explicitly or implicitly specified domain.

in the case of Stefan's ethics stuff: can an action be universalized? = can it be performed by everybody (+ at the same time)? does it have universalizability?



morons

LaraBars. They are raw. They are EXCELLENT. Check them out.

I'm becoming more and more a raw foodist for lots of reasons. Cooking kills food. Why would you want to eat dead food?

Next subject.

I can't respond to Danny's arguments as he is vastly more educated in referential material of which I have no knowledge, so I can only speak on the basis of my own logical analysis. That being the case, let me throw this out in support of U.P.B.

There is an argument regarding property which I find powerful. It is the idea that property is self evident in that any animal will protect his property, and even a thief is an example of property in that the reason that a thief steels something is so that he can have it for himself, and that is proof that the stuff he steels is property.

I don't know if I stated that clearly, but I find that to be a pretty convincing argument for the idea of property. Note that I did NOT say property RIGHTS. That is another issue which I have delved into elsewhere and is not pertinent here.

Okay, on to U.P.B. As I see the idea. Totally separate from whatever the hell Stef says or argues or whatever.

It is the nature of all living things to have life, to have freedom. If something does not desire life, as many come to in the course of their lives, they generally will cease living, through lack of giving a shit, or through an active choice like suicide. Without freedom, a living thing is incapable of doing that which it needs in order to continue living and to prosper, so freedom is inexorably linked to life. One must have freedom in order to attend to whatever it is that the organism needs at the moment.

So each living organism desires life and requires freedom for itself. The fact that it is alive attests to this. This is universal. It is prefered, in that life will suffer to the extent that it is lacking. I may live in a prison, but I will not thrive.

Whatever that "spririt" is that is within us which motivates us to live, to smile (an evidence that the needs of that spirit have been satisfied), to have the motivation to eat and exercise and play and so on. Whatever that is requires freedom. Look at caged animals as evidence.

So just like the idea that a thief, by steeling something, proves the concept of property, so the nature of life and living prove the universality of prefered behaviors, like freedom of action.

I'm sure I've made a hash of that, but I hope you may see what it is that I'm getting at.


Okay, your turn. Have at it.

- NonE

NonE, I think it's important to separate the idea of private property from Molyneux's theory of private property. We're all libertarians here, and certainly don't want to suggest that there's no substance to the concept of private property. I think it's fairly clear that humans become attached to their material possessions, and that their relationships with these objects become critical to their well-being. It further seems to me that at least one core part of why we respect property rights is our appreciation of the moral significance of this connection. Another core part is our appreciation of the capacity of property institutions to make us into good neighbors, to give rise to a price system which helps us to coordinate our actions, to allow us to form reliable expectations and plans -- in other words, of the power of private property institutions to produce the kind of society we want to live in.

None of what I have argued should blind us to any of these important insights, which have been passed down to us in various forms from thinkers like Locke, Mises, Hayek, Nozick, Lomasky, and countless others. In rejecting Molyneux's particular theory, we are most certainly not rejecting private property or libertarianism. The problem is that as articulated, Molyneux's theory does not work. The thief clearly does something objectionable to his victim, but the problem is not that "not stealing" is somehow "objectively required" of people by the immutable laws of reason and evidence, or that everyone couldn't possibly be stealing at all times, no matter the circumstances. And so while Molyneux arrives at conclusions that I don't think many of us would want to reject (remember, he sat down to prove the libertarian ethics we already accept, and that's pretty much the sort of paradigm he arrived at), I think we nevertheless have to reject his theory.

Ah Geeeze!

Did I fail to communicate THAT BADLY???
Did you miss this part:

NonE wrote:

Okay, on to U.P.B. As I see the idea. Totally separate from whatever the hell Stef says or argues or whatever.

And I guess that it wasn't clear that I wasn't talking about private property AT ALL, I was only trying to make a relationship sorta like they do in those I.Q. tests when they say A is to B as C is to D or some such.

Maybe I'll try again sometime when I'm feeling more coherent.

- NonE

Well but then what does "universally preferable behavior" mean/have to do with anything if not what Molyneux means and intends by it?

No...physical substance? Are there people who think that property institutions are physical substances?