Natural Rights

Nick, I've been watching you bounce back and forth with Ed for a while. Ed has shown superhuman patience thus far. Unfortunately, I'm not that patient.

I think I've shown some patience also. Are you trying to intimidate me? If I don't bow down to you, are you going to beat me up or something?

Ed's answer was forced because you refused to answer his question: "is this the only available drinkable water?"

Yes, suppose it is the only drinkable water on the island.

When natural resources aren't abundant in an environment, even insects won't live there. But you seem to assume that humans would be more then eager to live in a barren environment, with a single water source, privately owned by a tyrant. Why is that?

It is a hypothetical situation, but reality also has situations where resources are scarce.

Like Ed said, there is no substitute for water. It is survival.

True. A person with water can survive much longer than someone without it.

If a single tyrant owned all of the potable water on the face of the Earth, wouldn't the rest of the human population be within their rights to claim their own survival, at any cost? One tyrant laying claim to the survival of everyone else is slavery, and slaves have the right to revolt.

So, you justify initiating the use of physcal force against a property owner. You don't think this is a problem for Objectivism?

It wasn't water, but people did over-run Sutter's property during the California gold rush. Do you think he was right to sue for his property back? Was it right for the squatters to kill his family and keep the land, even when the courts awarded it back to him?

If you and a group of people from this messageboard were on a pristine island and had to set up a community from scratch, do you think you would pull it off? Or, would it be like "Lord of the Flies"? Be honest. Would someone like me be the first to go?

bis bald,

Nick

Post 21

Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 7:07pm

I smell a hot dog stand.

Post 22

Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 8:34pm

I think I've shown some patience also. Are you trying to intimidate me? If I don't bow down to you, are you going to beat me up or something?

Something tells me you'd probably get into that very very much.

So, you justify initiating the use of physcal force against a property owner. You don't think this is a problem for Objectivism?

Within the context of tyranny, or mental retardation, no, I don't. But I'm not surprized you do.

It wasn't water, but people did over-run Sutter's property during the California gold rush. Do you think he was right to sue for his property back? Was it right for the squatters to kill his family and keep the land, even when the courts awarded it back to him?

Did those people have alternatives, or not? Is gold essential to human survival? Are you deliberately evading the context of the issue, secretly hoping I'll wield the whip and give you a big bad spanking?

If you and a group of people from this messageboard were on a pristine island and had to set up a community from scratch, do you think you would pull it off? Or, would it be like "Lord of the Flies"? Be honest. Would someone like me be the first to go?

LMAO! You're a writer from "Lost," aren't you?

Honestly, I can't think of a single person here (with the exception of possibly two, don't ask!) who would try to off you. Everyone else would defend your right to exist, probably even protect you from the those who didn't think you had such a right.

Look, if you're after script material, you won't find a more colorful bunch than right here. And if we were marooned on a pristine island, I can't think of another group I'd rather be stuck with than those that partake of this forum. Galt's honest truth. Great people.

Post 23

Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 8:58pm

�Within the context of tyranny, or mental retardation��

Such as a hot dog stand owner, positioned alongside Connecticut�s too-little I95, insisting, �not ever. Not for a million. Not for a billion, not for zillions of millions.�

Post 24

Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 9:01pm

I love when people create unrealistic/emergency scenarios and try to prove how wrong Objectivism is. It's boring every time. The perpetrators of these types of games rarely are open to reason.

Ethan

Post 25

Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 11:46pm

What Teresa said.

Ed
[Thanks Teresa! Sometimes the muck's so thick that -- once you enter it in order to engage someone who's drawn you down into it -- you're expending so much energy to keep your head up; that you don't have the energy to wield your sword effectively (pehaps this is the unspoken purpose of muck-raking? -- ie. to win without actually 'earning' it)]

Post 26

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 4:09am

Yes, Ed - now you know why I haven't really gotten into it - too much oxygen spent swinging the sword of reason in the muck of mindlessness...

Post 27

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 8:10am

Ed,

While I consider those few who venture to clear the fog for others utterly heroic, as you move through your own life, focus on keeping your own path clear. You'll find better people will be drawn into that wake, than one merely stirring up the mist.

Sheath Excalibur and exhale, good teacher.

:)

Post 28

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 8:43am

Thanks for the entertaining, moral support, you guys!

Ed

Post 29

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 9:46am

Within the context of tyranny, or mental retardation, no, I don't. But I'm not surprized you do.

There are lots of property owners who don�t want to let me camp out on their land and use their resources, even if I paid them. I�m not sure I can call them tyrants or mentally retarded. People simply don�t have a right to something just because they need it, according to Objectivism. A property owner doesn�t have an obligation to please others. If you force him or her to share his or her property with the herd, then you are the tyrant.

Did those people have alternatives, or not? Is gold essential to human survival? Are you deliberately evading the context of the issue, secretly hoping I'll wield the whip and give you a big bad spanking?

Do you even know about this real event in America�s history? Just answer the questions. Stop evading and trying to be funny.

Honestly, I can't think of a single person here (with the exception of possibly two, don't ask!) who would try to off you. Everyone else would defend your right to exist, probably even protect you from the those who didn't think you had such a right.

Good! That didn�t happen on the Objectivist Living board. I wasn�t kicked off, but I was ridiculed, like here, falsely accused of things for which others there were more guilty than I, and, finally, one of my posts were deleted, a post which has not been deleted from this board. Are people really more tolerant here?

BTW, muck rakers, like Mike Wallace and the 60 Minutes people, perform a service to society.

Bis bald,

Nick

Post 30

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 10:29am

Just a question, if one person owned the water in this hypothetical, he still needs to trade that water for other necessities of life. The guy can't eat water, can't use it to heat his home, can't be bothered with making clothing while tending to his water. There's still a necessity for trade and a division of labor. No matter what the circumstance.

Post 31

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 10:37am

John, a person can live much longer on water alone than people can without water. Yes, he may sell some of his water for other things, but he has a hugh advantage, doesn't he?

bis bald,

Nick

Post 32

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 10:57am

I don't understand your question. Why would he not just sell his water and trade for other necessities? Why would he wait until he was starving before he started trading?

You can put as many restrictions on a hypothetical to the point it bears zero relevance to reality. I mean what if UFO's came down and the purple unicorn aliens demanded he hand over the water or the planet Ork from which they came from will shoot their laser-beams o' doom at him.

Post 33

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 11:22am

I don't understand your question. Why would he not just sell his water and trade for other necessities? Why would he wait until he was starving before he started trading?

Maybe he doesn't like some of these people. Perhaps he will sell to some people, the attractive females, but not the others.

You can put as many restrictions on a hypothetical to the point it bears zero relevance to reality. I mean what if UFO's came down and the purple unicorn aliens demanded he hand over the water or the planet Ork from which they came from will shoot their laser-beams o' doom at him.

But this situation does happen in real life, in a more sophisticated way. I mentioned Sutter's Mill, but the Rockefeller monopolies are also an example of when one person controlls property that others want or need. n a larger sense, America has resources that Mexico and other countries want. Germany once had resources its neighboring countres wanted. And, Native Americans did deal with strange looking aliens who came over from another place and demanded food and water. It is also an example of why we need a legal system to settle disputes and determne who owns what and why. We should take this seriously and not simply dismiss it as extreme.

bis bald,

Nick

(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 7/16, 11:24am)

Post 34

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 2:40pm

Nick wrote

Maybe he doesn't like some of these people. Perhaps he will sell to some people, the attractive females, but not the others.

Maybe he's a big purple unicorn with a fancy ray gun. Are the attractive females the only ones making clothing and getting food? (again, making up restrictions as you go along) Then the attractive females can turn around and sell a portion of the water to others.

Or the purple unicorns can just zap the water out with their tracter beams.

But this situation does happen in real life, in a more sophisticated way. I mentioned Sutter's Mill, but the Rockefeller monopolies are also an example of when one person controlls property that others want or need. n a larger sense, America has resources that Mexico and other countries want. Germany once had resources its neighboring countres wanted. And, Native Americans did deal with strange looking aliens who came over from another place and demanded food and water. It is also an example of why we need a legal system to settle disputes and determne who owns what and why. We should take this seriously and not simply dismiss it as extreme.

Nick, you are going to have to take a few courses on Economics before you can talk about this subject with any authority.

Rockefellers sold their oil. People who needed it bought it. The Rockefellers didn't make their own clothing or build their own mansion. Likewise people who needed it didn't go and drill for the oil themselves, take on the financial risk of doing so, or spending one ounce of energy to do so. The Rockefellers didn't steal or forcibly take any land to drill for oil. They purchased it. And they always had the threat of competition. They could never raise oil prices too high as the threat of competition, or substitution of goods, would occur. Please pick up an Econ book, and look up the difference between "Natural" and "Artificial" monopolies, and "Substitution". Then back to me and we can talk.

America has resources that they trade with Mexico. And Mexico has resources that America wants, e.g. cheap labor, and oil. As Mexico is an Opec country.

In every case, one person had something the other wanted and vice versa. Hence a fundamental defining characteristic of human society is trade and division of labor. You also have to understand the principle of "comparative advantage".

Post 35

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 3:37pm

If you want to think you've refuted me, John, go ahead. I'll let my point stand. My hypothetical situation can and does have parallels in reality, and you can't make it go away just by ridiculing it or looking at it in your own slanted way.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 36

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 4:37pm

Nick

If you want to think you've refuted me, John, go ahead.

Nick, it's not possible for someone to refute a hypothetical. If you can make up anything, and start adding rules as you go on ad hoc, then it would be irrational to expect anyone to be able to refute it. It's clear you have a very poor understanding of Economics, and unless you're willing to broaden your knowledge and pick up an Econ book or go to your local college and take a few introductory econ courses, then you're not going to get it. Ever.

Post 37

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 5:51pm

Someone in another one of my posts said somethng similar about hypotheticals. See if you can find it.

The stories in the Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and Anthem are fictional hypotheticals, but they are relevant to what can and does happen in real life.

I have taken economics classes, John. It's not my life's goal, however, to prove myself to you. As I said before, believe what you want.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 38

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 6:06pm

Smug condecension is annoying and often the first retreat of those who can't handle a real argument.

Post 39

Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 8:12pm