Author Topic: References to "Private property" in relation to UPB?  (Read 361 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sulaco

  • FDR Curious
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
References to "Private property" in relation to UPB?
« on: June 05, 2019, 08:48:50 PM »
0
Hello community, first time posting:)

UPB has been just an aggravation for me - knowing that it's out there in the internet and with a devout following. Each time I try to figure out what it is, my consciousness slides off it like Teflon. But I've been browsing the Wiki, trying to associate the expressed theory with its odd applications and there's one thing early on that I cannot grasp:

Stefan says UPB applies to behaviours, I mean it's right there in the name, and doesn't have total dominion over mental acts. As such he locates UPB in an argumentative framework where people's mental acts get drawn out behaviourally into participation in an argument. Okay.

How does he establish the relevance of personal or private property in relation to UPB? Specifically, private property is not a behaviour, it is an abstract relationship between the self and parts of the mundane world. The closest I can theorise this as a behaviour would be "actively owning" an object, but I still can't figure out how owning something can be a behaviour.

Private property is an abstract concept - therefore it is a mental activity "regarding the state ownership", so it seems misplaced to talk about it in relation to UPB ... because of the B. I don't think Stefan establishes clearly how contextal abstract relations (He owns X, She owns Y) enters in to this paradigm. He just invokes ownership as if it were an uncontested and natural category. Yet, UPB doesn't attend to category, relation and abstract - only the behaviours that people should have.

Are there any links or references that could expand my appreciation of this - or is it foolhardy nonsense from the get-go?

Sulaco

  • FDR Curious
  • Posts: 2
  • Respect: 0
Re: References to "Private property" in relation to UPB?
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2019, 12:10:51 AM »
0
Quote
Clearly, if I proclaim that “X” is “the good,” then the opposite of “X” must be evil. If not raping is good, then raping must be evil. Conversely, if raping is good, then not raping must be evil.

Let me transpose this:
if Stefan says "private property is good" then the opposite "no private property must be evil"
if Stefan says "owning property is good" the the opposite "not owning property must be evil"

But this still has to be a behaviour and not a status, or a contextual element

Quote
If, to save the virtue of soldiers, I alter my theory to argue that it is moral for people to murder if someone else tells them to (a political leader, say), then I must deal with the problem of universality. If Politician A can order a soldier to murder an Iraqi, then the Iraqi must also be able to order the soldier to murder Politician A, and the soldier can also order Politician A to murder the Iraqi. The application of this theory results in a general and amoral paralysis, and thus is proven invalid.

Private property to me, being contextual, operates far more like these politicians. If I find an apple tree out in the wilderness, I can eat the apple and this is good UPB because eating is a biological necessity, but if a politician says "No, this tree is private property" I am then expected to not do the good UPB (eating) and instead view eating the apple as an evil act.

So - what is the moral paradigm that establishes that Private Property (a context, a status, an abstract) is good and should mediate how behaviours are viewed as moral or evil?   

summa logicae

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 146
  • Respect: +59
Re: References to "Private property" in relation to UPB?
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2019, 06:27:37 PM »
0
Quote
Clearly, if I proclaim that “X” is “the good,” then the opposite of “X” must be evil. If not raping is good, then raping must be evil. Conversely, if raping is good, then not raping must be evil.

Let me transpose this:
if Stefan says "private property is good" then the opposite "no private property must be evil"
if Stefan says "owning property is good" the the opposite "not owning property must be evil"

But this still has to be a behaviour and not a status, or a contextual element

Quote
If, to save the virtue of soldiers, I alter my theory to argue that it is moral for people to murder if someone else tells them to (a political leader, say), then I must deal with the problem of universality. If Politician A can order a soldier to murder an Iraqi, then the Iraqi must also be able to order the soldier to murder Politician A, and the soldier can also order Politician A to murder the Iraqi. The application of this theory results in a general and amoral paralysis, and thus is proven invalid.

Private property to me, being contextual, operates far more like these politicians. If I find an apple tree out in the wilderness, I can eat the apple and this is good UPB because eating is a biological necessity, but if a politician says "No, this tree is private property" I am then expected to not do the good UPB (eating) and instead view eating the apple as an evil act.

So - what is the moral paradigm that establishes that Private Property (a context, a status, an abstract) is good and should mediate how behaviours are viewed as moral or evil?

You're expecting far too much from Molyneux. As you have already noted, it's almost completely foolhardy nonsense. There's no moral groundwork, or paradigm, for the goodness of private property, because he simply assumes it to be a good a priori based on his anarcho/capitalist ideology. So, he simply works off the premise that if X, Y , and Z are good (or moral), then the opposite of those must necessarily be bad (or immoral). It's not exactly Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica, or anything a precocious 8-year-old could come up with, so don't wrack your brains too much trying see if you missed something.

phlogiston

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +6
Re: References to "Private property" in relation to UPB?
« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2019, 01:47:00 PM »
0
According to upb if you see someone drowning and you do not lend a hand and laugh at them you are still a good person so yeah. 
 Property is self evident to stef. It's more axiomatic  to upb. Brainpolice debated stef on this and as soon as stef was losing  he went to his usually tactics of derailment. See if you can find Brainpolice, he's been here occasionally also.

Lupus

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
  • Respect: +82
Re: References to "Private property" in relation to UPB?
« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2019, 07:02:04 PM »
0
According to upb if you see someone drowning and you do not lend a hand and laugh at them you are still a good person so yeah.

Additional confusion and tangle to Molyneux's moral mess . . . in FDR 3213 Molyneux states that in a statist society ethics do not apply, he says when you have a gun to your head there are no moral obligations - if you are asked to shoot a homeless person the moral thing to do would be to shoot the homeless person.

phlogiston

  • FDR Aware
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +6
Re: References to "Private property" in relation to UPB?
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2019, 02:33:53 AM »
0
So he says in a place without morals there are morals. Ethics do not apply but they do. Stef is a master philosopher.

Lupus

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
  • Respect: +82
Re: References to "Private property" in relation to UPB?
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2019, 08:38:55 AM »
0
So he says in a place without morals there are morals.

Well . . . it's hard to say as I live in the UK where we have a parliamentary democracy, so there is no obligation for me to adhere to any moral system, nothing to stop me shooting (and eating) my own children and nothing compelling me to reply to your question honestly, so yeah, maybe, maybe not.

I still can't figure out why Molyneux hasn't won any awards for this stuff ?