|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted March 24, 2009 10:20 PM |
|
|
What do you mean? Why do they have to, let's say, warn you that this is their land or something? What if they have no idea what property is, because they don't practice it? What if they consider ownership absurd and thus are unfamiliar with this absurdity, for example?
It is not THEM who need to do anything because it's not THEM who are "aggressive" or "take action" to claim things. The one with the action takes all burden.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2009 10:29 PM |
|
|
They don't have to tell you that it's their land because you can see that anyway. When you come to someone's house, you don't immediately wonder if it's their house, do you?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 24, 2009 10:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They don't have to tell you that it's their land because you can see that anyway.
What if you can't or do not want? What if you are blind to their system?
This isn't different than saying "that psycho, can't he clearly see that people are suffering when they are killed?" when he replies with "no". Does that make him innocent?
I mean even if he does not see that others are suffering/living, then use reason (assuming he is capable of it): should I take an action? Once it's done, no excuse with "I didn't see that" or "I had no idea" is gonna cut it. Unless you're a child.
As for the house, no I don't because I am familiar with the system. I'm pretty sure I would cause unwilling havoc if I were teleported to an Alien society though, if I were to take lots of action for myself (which I wouldn't, as I am rational enough to figure out that it'll be my sole blame to take).
And what you say is kinda funny: do you also ask the killers what their opinions of 'requirements' the victims did not meet? (like say, capable of initiating contract, as the analogy). Do you ask the killer/the one who took action/caused consequences that? That's kinda funny...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 24, 2009 11:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What if you are blind to their system?
But the point is, different as the Europeans and Aztecs were, the Europeans weren't blind to their system. They saw them living in their houses, tending to their fields, etc.
The rest of your post makes no sense.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 24, 2009 11:21 PM |
|
|
Off-topic
I am going widely overboard on this, but didn't the aztecs practically GIVE everything to the spaniards, instantly regretting it, once cortez didn't turn out to be a gigantic forty-feet long feathered snake?
And the Indians were difficult to have a contract with...
"Can I use this plot of land? I am willing to give you forty sterling (orwhatever the currency was back then)"
"We all own this land, we can collectivly use this, so this is my land, while it is you land."
"Ka-ching!"
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 24, 2009 11:55 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:57, 24 Mar 2009.
|
@mvass: I'm talking more hypothetically, and even if saw there houses or whatever, it doesn't make the whole picture. (plus Aztecs are human too  ). You don't really seem to be very philosophical about entire "system" differences, rather than just a re-designed system. Think of totally "classless, stateless society" (also called "pure communism" ) and compare it. You'll see it simply doesn't fit with the same mentality.
For the rest of my analogies, I don't think you got it, again. Point of the matter, I'm not explaining why it is, you can look into the analogy for that: the "initiator" or the one who performs the action cannot use his mentality to judge the consequences or the "system" or "morality" or just about ANYTHING else really.
When religion does that to atheists and judges them according to their beliefs/mentality, you consider it hypocrisy and barbarians. Somehow here it's different you think, like your "religion" on let's say, animals, for the sake of the argument?
Quote:
I am going widely overboard on this, but didn't the aztecs practically GIVE everything to the spaniards, instantly regretting it, once cortez didn't turn out to be a gigantic forty-feet long feathered snake?
See?
Exactly my point. For the sake of the argument, let us assume that the europeans were blind to that and not exploited it. Let us assume that they did it because they saw it as a threat or somesuch, in effect, being blind to their "system", instead of being praised or whatever. And of course anyone can be wrong, doesn't meant the Aztecs weren't.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 12:04 AM |
|
|
Again, that didn't make any sense. I will respond to the only two coherent points.
Quote:
Somehow here it's different you think, like your "religion" on let's say, animals, for the sake of the argument?
No, because my division is rational. Theirs isn't.
Quote:
Exactly my point. For the sake of the argument, let us assume that the europeans were blind to that and not exploited it. Let us assume that they did it because they saw it as a threat or somesuch, in effect, being blind to their "system", instead of being praised or whatever. And of course anyone can be wrong, doesn't meant the Aztecs weren't.
Look, the Aztecs were human and used their property quite visibly. So the Spaniards should've noticed it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 12:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, because my division is rational. Theirs isn't.
did you even get my point or do you like to answer things like "OMG I am so awesome cause I'm rational"?
You know, crusaders are pretty rational in picking 'unbelievers' too. What's "rational" in, let's say, picking animals? What is it more rational than picking your e.g: enemy?
Quote:
Look, the Aztecs were human and used their property quite visibly.
define it in an objective sense, or at least, NOT AN "ATTACKER" POINT OF VIEW. You don't ask a criminal if someone is "alive or not". Do you think criminals can get away by saying "hey, he didn't visibly (at least to me, who are YOU to judge that?) expressed that they were alive! I am innocent thus!"
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 12:35 AM |
|
|
I see you aren't interested in a serious discussion. Come back when you are.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 02:03 AM |
|
|
is that your convenient phrase?
Maybe it doesn't have 100% to do with economics (though it does at least with a bit of capitalism), but you said that your motives are rational -- however you also claim rationality is not an end, thus rationality is just a means to achieve your goals.
So pray tell, if crusaders have the goal to torture/exterminate or "convert" as they call it the 'unbelievers', and are pretty rational in doing so... why is it so different? That's their goal, and they are rational (to achieve it).
I'm not comparing you to a crusader, I'm only saying your argument with rationality has no basis, and if I am comparing you to one, it is only to point out the flaw in your argument.
seriously did you even TRY to understand what I said or just wanted something 100% explicit without thinking a bit about it?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 02:20 AM |
|
|
Because the goal is pleasure/happiness - this is true for all living things. Everything else is just a means to that end. And reason is the best tool to reach that end.
The crusaders' goal was not to kill infidels, or even to get money. (At least, that wasn't their ultimate goal.) Their ultimate goal was pleasure/happiness, and those were what they thought would help them reach it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 07:14 AM |
|
|
Mv:Quote:
The problem with land being owned in common is the tragedy of the commons - someone could lease the land, then use up all the resources, then stop leasing it, and the owner would be left with nothing.
JJQuote:
In case of exploiting natural resources this woulde always be a joined venture between "the community" and the people, corporation, comradeship or whatever entity would try to exploit them.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 01:40 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 01:49 PM |
|
|
What's vague about that?
Land and every natural resource in it would belong to the community, basically, so basically people who'd exploit those resources would do it BY DEFINITION on behalf of said community.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 02:11 PM |
|
|
Wait. So say the community owns a forest. I want to come along and lease that forest, and cut some of the trees down. What happens?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 02:51 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker:
Quote:
Everyone could LEASE land.
No. If private individuals and institutions were allowed to lease it, then they'd be able to put resources owned in common to their own selfish use. How is that right?
Mvass:
Ability to make a contract = ability to be exploited.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 03:31 PM |
|
|
The community decides whether it's ok, to do it (it might need the forest or part of it for other purposes). If it IS decided ok, said someone has to explain in detail what kind of permanent and non-permanent changes to the land(scape) are necessary and intended (for example roads building for transporting vehicles). If THAT is deemed ok (it may be linked with conditions to restore the initial situation or part of it), the job can be done. A lease of the land would only be necessary for a permanent business. All profits will be split in a certain way that would obviously depend on the general situation.
@DeadMan
I think that answers you as well.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 09:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because the goal is pleasure/happiness - this is true for all living things. Everything else is just a means to that end. And reason is the best tool to reach that end.
The crusaders' goal was not to kill infidels, or even to get money. (At least, that wasn't their ultimate goal.) Their ultimate goal was pleasure/happiness, and those were what they thought would help them reach it.
I don't think I understand you here.
I asked "how does that make them different, following this logic?" and you replied with something like "it doesn't, they seek happiness, like us"? I'm not getting you here...
You can call it happiness if you want. If someone wants to destroy the planet, you may call it pursue happiness (in a sacrificial way, but then again, sacrifices happen all the time) but how does that make it different than, say, someone who wants to kill/exploit all animals?
except that he thinks a bit "bigger" (I mean Earth is a lot bigger project than animals after all...)?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 09:33 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Yes, but exactly how would all the splits be calculated?
TheDeath:
There is more than one way to pursue happiness. And, to a certain extent, we can use reason to move the sources about.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 25, 2009 09:35 PM |
|
|
Still doesn't answer the question "how does that make them different?"
(in a disagreeable way of course, unless you agree?)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
