Curried Goats
Platinum Member
- Aug 28, 2021
- 26,968
- 9,937
- 433
Sure.Can you even point out to me where I was objectively wrong? And I don't mean those times you assumed I thought the opinion or point was objective. Show me where I was objectively wrong.
I already have by arguing the nature of private ownership itself. Having exclusivity over land and it's resources requires you to have the ability to exclude others from accessing it. How is this exclusivity achieved without force?I also said "force", which is your word. If you can't prove property was acquired through the means you describe then, as I said, it just means you want to be given someone else's money.
I don't know that. Fairness is a feeling. You feel things are unfair, you don't know it. Knowledge to me is objective. Also the force I'm advocating for is the force of government in the form of higher taxes, that implies legality.Besides, you're not so fucking stupid as to not know that taking property by force or acquiring it illegally is unfair.
Then why do you keep arguing back your feelings to me in response to my objective arguments about ownership and force?My feelings are irrelevant to the ownership of your subjective accusation. The onus is upon you as the one making the accusation to prove it.
1. Property is protected by the force of law, is it not?This is where we disagree. Notice I said "disagree"; this does not mean I'm confused or stupid or that I confuse objectivism with subjectivism.
I do not agree with your understanding of force as it applies to acquiring or keeping property. If the property is legally and fairly acquired through a monetary purchase or mutual agreement, it is not taken by force so force is irrelevant.
2. We've established that fair is subjective so asking me to make an objective argument to counter your feelings is nonsensical.
3. Changing the laws to raise taxes and social safety nets would legalize everything I want to do. If your standard is simply legality then everything I advocate for meets that standard. I'm not suggesting taking anything from anyone without the force of law.
Haven't we already established laws are subjective? What if I don't care about your subjectively arrived at laws? It's OK to use force against me anyway according to you? See you're the one trying to justify uses of force based on nothing more than your feelings. I'm not doing that. I don't think laws and government give me some objective right to use force against others. I think forming a society and government simply give me greater numbers and thus a greater ability to impose our collective will.After acquisition it is protected by law and force only comes into play when someone tries to forcefully take it. Then force is used to protect it and/or to apprehend the one trying to take it.
Again, what should be is an argument about your feelings. You own things by the grace of the force of law which protects your ownership of said things. That's objectively true.I can, and in fact do, own my things without having used force and they were not acquired through force. I do not agree that someone who acquires property legally should have it taken from him because some idiot a hundred years ago took it from someone else.
Rich people also need the power and force of law to get rich so I don't know what objective distinction you imagine you're making here.All this nonsense about force and law is just your justification for taking money from the rich and you need the power of the government to take it by force so you can suckle that teat.
Words can mean whatever people want them to mean, that doesnt mean meaning itself can't be analyzed for its objectivity. For some reason stating this objective truth has triggered you in to imagining it's my subjective opinion rather than a reflection of objective fact.You'll have to define what "force" means. And since you say that word meanings are subjective, that would be a neat trick.
As for what force is, it's one object acting on another. It's not subjective, it's objective. It's physics.
My understanding of force is objective.No, it is not. It's your subjective understanding of force within the given context.
These are my opinions. There is no real objective meaning to what is just. When I think of justice I think of it in two contexts. One is simply a matter of legality. Justice for a nation is the upholding of its laws, whatever those laws may be. The second is in the same vein of morality. Something people imagine to have an objective component but that is ultimately, entirely subjective. I don't talk in terms of what is just or what is morally righteous because those things don't really exist. They're just veneers on your opinion. I don't feel the need to dress my opinion up as anything more than it is.I'm not imagining that you've given reasons for your opinions about sharing wealth and eliminating billionaires. These are your justifications.