Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Terry 1956]

If there is enough food and water to sustain 2, then the firstcomer is morally bound to share the island.  If there is not, then the newcomer is morally bound to seek the next island.  Neither has a claim sufficient to sentence the other to death.

By what code of morality?

what code of morality allows firstcomer to their claim?

law of the jungle?

                                                                             
  They only have first claim if they are using it or have put work into it.

He is using it but he has not mixed his labor with it. He just lives there.

Then if all he is doing is picking fruit off the tree, he has no right to stop others from picking off the tree unless it is reasonable to claim he put "enough" work in to finding the tree. Also does picking the fruit of this tree actually help it to bear more than if it had just dropped natually, if so he mixed his labor with the tree so it is his tree.                                                            
  Now if he just found the tree and there is just enough for one person would he be just in claiming it if another person comes alone? Lifeboat can only hold one no previous owner around or no connection to the owner, the first one to get to it owns it.                              
   Now would a long history of  law of the sea apply in some of these cases?

[<Patrick>]

The person who has a gun or other means to secure and defend his posession of the island.

But what if they both have a gun? Then do you think it would be wise to resort to violence?

If they both have guns than it would be a matter of which one is more adept at using one.  They may also come to a mutual agreement, but it is hard to see how any agreement would leave the current resident of the island better off than before the newcomer arrived.  The two together may be able to exchange skills to achieve a higher standard of living for both.

What is more practical? A gunfight or to exchange skills to achieve a higher standard of living for both?

[<Patrick>]

If there is enough food and water to sustain 2, then the firstcomer is morally bound to share the island.  If there is not, then the newcomer is morally bound to seek the next island.  Neither has a claim sufficient to sentence the other to death.

By what code of morality?

what code of morality allows firstcomer to their claim?

law of the jungle?

                                                                             
  They only have first claim if they are using it or have put work into it.

He is using it but he has not mixed his labor with it. He just lives there.

Then if all he is doing is picking fruit off the tree, he has no right to stop others from picking off the tree unless it is reasonable to claim he put "enough" work in to finding the tree. Also does picking the fruit of this tree actually help it to bear more than if it had just dropped natually, if so he mixed his labor with the tree so it is his tree.                                                            
  Now if he just found the tree and there is just enough for one person would he be just in claiming it if another person comes alone? Lifeboat can only hold one no previous owner around or no connection to the owner, the first one to get to it owns it.                              
   Now would a long history of  law of the sea apply in some of these cases?

So would the island be like the lifeboat, the first one to get to it owns it?

[Terry 1956]

The person who has a gun or other means to secure and defend his posession of the island.

But what if they both have a gun? Then do you think it would be wise to resort to violence?

If they both have guns than it would be a matter of which one is more adept at using one.  They may also come to a mutual agreement, but it is hard to see how any agreement would leave the current resident of the island better off than before the newcomer arrived.  The two together may be able to exchange skills to achieve a higher standard of living for both.

What is more practical? A gunfight or to exchange skills to achieve a higher standard of living for both?

The last even if Robinson is better in both fruit growing , fishing , cooking and construction.

[<Patrick>]

The person who has a gun or other means to secure and defend his posession of the island.

But what if they both have a gun? Then do you think it would be wise to resort to violence?

If they both have guns than it would be a matter of which one is more adept at using one.  They may also come to a mutual agreement, but it is hard to see how any agreement would leave the current resident of the island better off than before the newcomer arrived.  The two together may be able to exchange skills to achieve a higher standard of living for both.

What is more practical? A gunfight or to exchange skills to achieve a higher standard of living for both?

The last even if Robinson is better in both fruit growing , fishing , cooking and construction.

I agree. In a gunfight, its either loose-loose or loose-win because one or both parties will end up dead. At least if they choose to exchange skills they will still both live to see the light of day. A lot less risky!

[LeopardPM]

is this a utilitarian argument or what?

its already been proven that the most efficient and beneficial method of social interaction is through trade - this does NOT, however, over-rule the fundamental 'might makes right' in nature... we humans have just found a better way amongst ourselves...

try to open trade negotiations with that 10 mile asteriod speeding towards earth or a hurricane or tornado or a nasty pack of wolves (lions, tigers, or bears...)

ok, lets get back to the island thing - I love islands!  does it have palm trees and big, pretty flowers?


day-dreaming,
michael

[Top Dollar]

For a libertarian intentional community on an island, check out http://www.portwatson.com/ .  Lots of pretty pictures of palm trees, sandy beaches, and blue ocean.

[<Patrick>]

is this a utilitarian argument or what?

its already been proven that the most efficient and beneficial method of social interaction is through trade - this does NOT, however, over-rule the fundamental 'might makes right' in nature... we humans have just found a better way amongst ourselves...

try to open trade negotiations with that 10 mile asteriod speeding towards earth or a hurricane or tornado or a nasty pack of wolves (lions, tigers, or bears...)

ok, lets get back to the island thing - I love islands!  does it have palm trees and big, pretty flowers?


day-dreaming,
michael

Well, I thought we were talking about two people, not asteroids, hurricanes and wild animals.  

[LeopardPM]

yeah, humans we be talking about - the point I was trying to make is that in nature, there are no 'rights'.  And we are part of nature and must tak that into account when creating our abstract systems for interaction.  saying the we have a 'right to life' means nothing in the natural world, it is purely a inter-human 'agreement', if you will... the closer to nature (more reflective of) these agreements are, the better equiped we are to deal with reality.  maybe I digressed, what was the topic again?


distracted and abstracted,
michael

[<Patrick>]

yeah, humans we be talking about - the point I was trying to make is that in nature, there are no 'rights'.  And we are part of nature and must tak that into account when creating our abstract systems for interaction.  saying the we have a 'right to life' means nothing in the natural world, it is purely a inter-human 'agreement', if you will... the closer to nature (more reflective of) these agreements are, the better equiped we are to deal with reality.  maybe I digressed, what was the topic again?


distracted and abstracted,
michael

I agree fully. Rights do not exist in nature. However, certain aspects of human nature give rise to the propriety of instituting "rights" as social principles. We are all better off if we all agree to "live and let live."

[BillG]

I kinda like the idea of capitalists lecturing a "green" on the state of nature...maybe we are making some progress here!

[<Patrick>]

I kinda like the idea of capitalist lecturing a "green" on the state of nature...maybe we are making some progress here!

Well, to make any progress in understanding the views of others who's most basic principles differ from our own, we must go deeper and deeper into first principles to find out what common ground we may have.

[LeopardPM]

I kinda like the idea of capitalists lecturing a "green" on the state of nature...maybe we are making some progress here!

are you saying that those colored 'green' have exclusive knowledge regarding the reality of the natural world?

As a capitalist, it behooves me to understand 'reality' as best I can so that I can most effectively interact with it: this includes all aspects of reality and the other humans within.

You'll see, my friend Bill, when you come begging to my air factory to buy some air.... "How clean would you like that air, Bill?" and "Hmmm, I am not sure you can afford our Pristine Pure line of air, how about this economy 'Grunge Air' just in from L.A.!"


luv ya man!
michael

PS: Was I really lecturing/ ick - I really need to stop doing that, I certainly don't know everything and need a bit of hubris to make my version of 'the truth' taste sweeter to the listener...

[LeopardPM]

...to find out what common ground we may have

I suggest we refrain from using this term as it is exactly what we are discussing... we have no 'common' ground, just your ground, and mine - hopefully we have a border at which we both can come to and discuss things politely...


jes being stupid,
michael