Ethics and morals.
Ethics and morals.
Posted May 6, 2011 22:51 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954)In reply to: Ethics and morals. by nybble41
Parent article: Interview with Linus Torvalds (LinuxFR)
By definition, you can't take someone's property by voting -- you can't take it at all. Property is what a person exclusively controls.That is one definition, and not a very typical one. Under that rule possession isn't just 9/10 of the law--it's 100%.
OK, I wasn't precise enough, but I think this is definition everyone uses. I meant "can't" to be relative to whatever system of property you're talking about. If it's legal property, than "can't take it" means it would be illegal to take it (or the government will force you to give it back, or whatever). For moral property, it would mean that you can't take it without being evil. For de facto property, it would be as you say: 100% possession.
Those are the three kinds of property I think we've been discussing. They're all valid in my book, but you have to use it consistently. For example, if you're talking about a legal election, you have to talk about legal property. So no, you can't take someone's property by voting because anything you can "take" was your property to begin with. Likewise, if you're talking about the peasants rising up and voting to take control of the land they farm from an oppressive king, that's a moral vote to repossess moral property which was morally the peasants' to begin with, so no property is taken.
Posted May 7, 2011 0:48 UTC (Sat)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link] (2 responses)
That's a perfectly reasonable analysis from the legal point-of-view, but the fact that the election is legal does not mean one can only analyze it from a legal perspective. From the perspective of natural law (or moral property rights, if you will), the election, however legal it may have been, had no effect on moral property rights. Speaking from that point-of-view, it is perfectly valid to say that people held a legal election and then, on the basis of that vote, proceeded to take others' property immorally for their own use. It is also reasonable to say that since the entire purpose of the vote was to determine whether or not to act immorally, the vote itself is immoral--by voting on this topic (or at least in favor) one is seeking permission to act immorally, or asking someone else to do so.
I understand that you may not agree with the moral code used in this example, but that isn't really the point. The legal, moral, and (though rather pointless) "de facto" aspects of property rights all apply to any situation simultaneously. You don't choose one based on the context and ignore the rest. Legal actions have moral and practical dimensions, and vise-versa.
Posted May 8, 2011 0:11 UTC (Sun)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link] (1 responses)
You appear to be reading something rather different from what I wrote, because I didn't offer any analysis at all. I'm just defining terms and parsing sentences. And "was" is what I meant. By definition, if you're talking about a legal election and legal property, whatever the public can take by voting was the public's to begin with (eminent domain); the election merely exercises that ownership. There's no theft.
But you should be clear which one you're talking about in any given sentence, and especially avoid switching off from one to another mid-sentence. I also believe "moral property" is a pretty useless concept -- as I said in the beginning I'd rather someone say he favors highly individualized legal property than say he believes moral property is highly individualized and he is against laws that let you steal people's moral property. They both say the same thing, but the former makes it a clearer what the belief is. Maybe just because legal property is by far the most commonly discussed kind of property.
Posted May 8, 2011 4:59 UTC (Sun)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link]
True. However, we weren't talking about legal property or legal theft. We were speaking of moral property and moral theft in connection with a legal election. Ergo, this definition is irrelevant.
> But you should be clear which one you're talking about in any given sentence, and especially avoid switching off from one to another mid-sentence.
I agree. However, there is no "switching off" occurring here. The entire statement was a moral statement, which just happened to refer to an legal election, i.e. one which is accepted by the law. It is not an error to refer to legal concepts like elections in a moral context. By example:
De facto: Those holding the vote have a near-monopoly on the use of force (police, military, etc.) Ergo, direct resistance to enforcement of the vote is futile.
Legal: The law permits ownership/control of property to be transferred to "the public" based on the outcome of a vote. Ergo, the property now legally belongs to the public. (It is still not inaccurate to say that the property was "taken" from its former private owner; the vote does not rewrite history. It merely makes the taking legal.)
Moral/Ethical: By my moral code, and my ethics as a libertarian, a vote (however legal and/or enforceable) has no effect whatsoever on the actual, moral ownership of property unless the owner voluntarily submits their property to said vote. Ergo, removing the property from the owner's control following the vote is (morally) an instance of theft, and thus wrong, again by my moral code. As such, I choose not to participate.
Ethics and morals.
Ethics and morals.
For example, if you're talking about a legal election, you have to talk about legal property. So no, you can't take someone's property by voting
because anything you can "take" was[n't] your property to begin with.
That's a perfectly reasonable analysis from the legal point-of-view,
The legal, moral, and (though rather pointless) "de facto" aspects of property rights all apply to any situation simultaneously. You don't choose one based on the context and ignore the rest. Legal actions have moral and practical dimensions, and vise-versa.
Ethics and morals.