Free Speech & Right to Privacy/Libel/etc (more fun with PZ!)

[Red Celt]

Can I read you diary?

Can you read my property? When property doesn't exist?

[Mysturji]

A world with zero property rights could be more liberal than your conservative little imagination could ever dream of.

Property rights are the domain of the chimpanzee. Evolve, already.

What a load of shit.

Ha!

Sorry to say this, but the right to do stuff with at least some stuff of your own is going to be necessary for very much of that liberty to be worth anything.

Imagine a world with no property. No ownership.
...blahblahbullshitblah...

The line is "Imagine no possessions..."
Great song, unworkable idea. (But fun to imagine. There's a difference between imagination and reality.)

...nobody owns anything.

Meanwhile, back in reality...

[Robert_S]

Can I read you diary?

Can you read my property? When property doesn't exist?

Can I eat your brain?

[Red Celt]

Can I read you diary?

Can you read my property? When property doesn't exist?

Can I eat your brain?

"Nobody can do to other people what they wouldn't want done to them. This is a liberal society, remember? Your right to do anything you want only stops when it impinges on other people's right to do what they want."

[Red Celt]

Meanwhile, back in reality...

This isn't about reality. Have you read a single thing I've written?

Think of it as an intuition pump... a thought experiment... or, don't.

[Mysturji]

OK, think about unworkable shit all you want. Knock yourself out.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think I do have a firm grasp of it. But, perhaps if you explain in some detail what you mean by it....

Do I own the house I live in? Can I keep people from camping in my garage? Can I exclude them from the food in my refrigerator or not?

How can you say that you have a firm grasp of the idea of non-ownership when your first question involves ownership? Actually, all 3 of those questions involve ownership. I mean, jesus fuck, man...

...nobody owns anything.

Please, no need to insult. I really am trying to understand what it is you're talking about, and how it would apply to the real world.

So, then the place where I live with Little She. Can I keep other people out of it and off the lawn that I maintain? The box in the place where I live that contains food and which I supply with power to keep it cool, can I keep my neighbors from eating the food? And, the vehicle that I moved to a piece of land on which the place where I live is situated, are my neighbors allowed to borrow it whenever they want?

Nobody can do to other people what they wouldn't want done to them. This is a liberal society, remember? Your right to do anything you want only stops when it impinges on other people's right to do what they want.

Great concept. Now apply it to the practical situations I proposed.

We already live in a society where the right to do anything you want stops when it impinges on other people's rights to do what they want, for the most part. I mean, I can say what I want, and you can say what you want. I can't go where I want, and you can go where you want, except where it impinges on my right to sanctity and security of my property. That's what it is now.

If you take the "property" aspect out of the equation, then it's "I can go where I want, even if it's the place where you live and put a fence around because I'm not impinging on any right of yours. If not for property rights, how do I keep neighbors off the lawn surrounding the place where I live?

If your next reply involves the words "own", "have", "my" (or any other similar word which involves someone owning anything) I'll just have to assume that you're deliberately trolling. Take some time to think about the whole idea, if you like. Again, this isn't a world model I'm trying to sell. I'm describing a world model which involves liberty and no ownership. If you can accept that such a world could exist, you might (in future) not try and claim that liberty requires ownership.

Ever the optimist.

Fair enough. I've rephrased.

You've described a general principle. Apply it now to real life. Anyone can imagine anything.

[Coito ergo sum]

Can I read you diary?

Can you read my property? When property doesn't exist?

You are now playing a semantic game.

Rephrase his question to this: Can I read the things you write on pages in a book labeled "diary" without your permission?

[charlou]

peoples and ownership .. I've been thinking about that just now, in light of your comments, red celt. The first thing that came to mind is the Australian aboriginal culture ... I'll think some more and maybe get back to this. Maybe.

[Red Celt]

OK, think about unworkable shit all you want. Knock yourself out.

They should have had that above the entrance to the Lyceum or the Academy.

Without centuries of people doing exactly that, we wouldn't have progressed to science. So... bravo, using an implement created by science to denigrate the foundations that caused it.

[Robert_S]

OK, think about unworkable shit all you want. Knock yourself out.

They should have had that above the entrance to the Lyceum or the Academy.

Without centuries of people doing exactly that, we wouldn't have progressed to science. So... bravo, using an implement created by science to denigrate the foundations that caused it.

But at some point, you gotta do the empiricism and look at what actually happens in the world where people eat, do laundry, poop, trip over that thing someone else left on the staircase... otherwise you're going to end up with the functional equivalent of gods all over again.

[Red Celt]

Can I read you diary?

Can you read my property? When property doesn't exist?

You are now playing a semantic game.

Rephrase his question to this: Can I read the things you write on pages in a book labeled "diary" without your permission?

Oh, I don't know... is that something that might happen in a liberal society (as I've described above)?

[Robert_S]

Can I read you diary?

Can you read my property? When property doesn't exist?

You are now playing a semantic game.

Rephrase his question to this: Can I read the things you write on pages in a book labeled "diary" without your permission?

Oh, I don't know... is that something that might happen in a liberal society (as I've described above)?

Is that one where everyone plays nice, or one with people like we have today?

[Coito ergo sum]

Can I read you diary?

Can you read my property? When property doesn't exist?

You are now playing a semantic game.

Rephrase his question to this: Can I read the things you write on pages in a book labeled "diary" without your permission?

Oh, I don't know... is that something that might happen in a liberal society (as I've described above)?

The right to exclude someone from reading a book is a property right in that book. If you do not have property rights in a thing, then you ipso facto do not have the right to exclude people from that thing. If you do have the right to exclude people from a thing, then you have a property right in that thing.

So, in your liberal society as you've described, does an individual have the right to exclude people from things, like the diary?

In your liberal society as you've described, does an individual have the right to exclude people from a lawn surrounding a home where that individual lives with a family?

[Red Celt]

OK, think about unworkable shit all you want. Knock yourself out.

They should have had that above the entrance to the Lyceum or the Academy.

Without centuries of people doing exactly that, we wouldn't have progressed to science. So... bravo, using an implement created by science to denigrate the foundations that caused it.

But at some point, you gotta do the empiricism and look at what actually happens in the world where people eat, do laundry, poop, trip over that thing someone else left on the staircase... otherwise you're going to end up with the functional equivalent of gods all over again.

This isn't... I mean... it isn't an either/or... this isn't a replacement model for reality and, for the love of all that is holy, please tell me that there can be a coexistence between "real worlds" and "imagined worlds".

Position 1: state A cannot exist without state B.
Position 2: state A can exist without state B and here's an example in an imagined world.

Why is that problematical?

For those who are having a problem with all of this, a word of advice... stay well clear of philosophy. If you see a book with the word on it, leave it be. If you see a documentary with the word in the title, change channels. Basically, anything philosophical is a big "no no" for you and should be avoided... because thought experiments are common. Not because they are meant to represent an alternative for reality, but because they help you look at reality in a different (fuller-structured) way. And that's a good thing.

Surely?