It seems to me, judging from the definitions, that legality is a measure of theft (among others). I agree that the law will have changed throughout history, and consequentially I would say that what counts as theft has changed accordingly. Who decides that? It's also quite possible that there is also issues of sloppy translation. Are you suggesting the law of the tithe from Leviticus 27:30 is inconsistent with "thou shall not steal"?
We can convert oil into energy, products and waste. Most believe oil is a finite resource, not to mention rare earth metals and minerals. So there is a limit, and depletion is a given if sought after as we have done with oil and other minerals. So, your premise, you assumption here leaves your OP in a weak position. Strengthen it, not weaken by being factual from the get-go. Introducing assumption does not help your argument. Just the facts, ma'am, as Joe Friday used to say.
you're really straining your 'factory worker argument' too far. Your worker's job can be done by a trained animal. Your argument requires only training(behavior modification) not true learning, which requires ingenuity. Human beings do not, and there is no anthropological record of us, ever hunting or fishing or gathering purely instinctually. Homo-sapiens-sapiens implies ingenuity. It does not deny instinct, but it does imply ingenuity. There is no difference or distinction between matter and material. A 'raw material' is just material (matter). A natural resource is a 'raw material' that can be combined with ingenuity to produce a product. There are only four ways to acquire the PRODUCTS we need to survive: industry, trade, charity and theft. To the extent that a thing is a combination of instinct and material, it is a good. Agriculture and animal husbandry are industries, but their products are referred to as goods because much of the process (the actual growing) is done by combining material with instinct (pre-existing information within the flora or fauna).
So you are arguing that that kind of job does not require ingenuity? And therefore that it does not count as industry and therefore is not a possible way to acquire products? The current example is about labels on bottles of blackening, but couldn't it just as easily be made about some useful product? If you were un-ingenuitly trained to purify water, isn't that obtaining a product without using ingenuity? I simply used your example from here, where you said hunting can be done instinctually. I'm not sure what I would count as instinct in humans, but I don't see any logical impossibility in us acquiring things we need to survive by instinct. Hm, I'm not sure if I'm reading it right, but are you also using very specific definition of goods and products? I would say a product is the intended (and/or realised) result of any process, and a good is anything which we want (it is good to us). Do you use them differently?
If it's enforced, by force, then yes; it is theft. I take no moral consolation from the legality of a thing or any moral trepidation from the illegality of it. In my opinion, we each have a moral responsibility to pick and choose which laws we obey because compliance with law is no excuse for being complicit with what is immoral or evil. For me, ideas like theft, assault, murder and false testimony transcend the current fashions of laws in various places at various times. At times, in places, laws are in line with these; at other times, in other places, they are not. We not only have a moral responsibility to pick and choose which laws we obey, we have an equal responsibility to get away with it. To the extent that I am able to get away with it, I do what I think is right and I do participate with what I think is wrong.
First of all, we're discussing your theoretical factory worker, not mine. For your worker to do his job without ingenuity, his job must be so simple that it requires only training (behavior modification) not true learning which requires ingenuity. In your argument, your factory worker's job could be done by an animal. Products require ingenuity. Goods do not. Products are the result of combining ingenuity and material. Goods are the result of combining instinct and material. Birds build nets instinctually. Plants grow instinctually. Much of what we do we do instinctually. Some animals have demonstrated, what can be argued to be, ingenuity. In theory, in an Eden, we could live like the animals; but we're not, and we don't. The fact is, as it stands right now, almost everything we need to survive, including but not limited to: clean, safe sufficient water food and shelter are the products of industry. There are only four ways to acquire those products: industry, trade, charity and theft.
For the vast majority of human history, petroleum was not considered a natural resource because we did not yet have the ingenuity to employ it. We can run out of all natural resources immediately if we lost the ingenuity to employ them. We could never run out of natural resources if our ingenuity outpaces our exhaustion of particular forms of material. We can never run out of material (matter).
I think, rationally, that we can fun out of anything that is finite. Using a resource destroys the resource, when as in the case of fossil fuels, converts them into products and energy. We can even run out of solar energy when our sun implodes. As it will happen eventually. We can recycle some things of matter, metal for one, but at some point it is possible that the need for some rare earth metals will deplete what we can source. A very long way off, but using logic this would appear to be inevitable, given that population continues to grow and the demand for these resources increase. The only thing that would stop depletion of some matter is our ability, via technology and intelligence to create the desirable matter that is being used up. Or if via intelligence and technology we can mine asteroids and other planets and their moons. But at some point highly needed matter can indeed be depleted, given it is not infinite. I think that is where simple logic would lead. But there are variables as I mentioned. An expansion of where we can extract raw materials. I do not assume that we will do this, as you must do. I am surprised you are arguing that side of things, actually. But you did get my attention and made me think. Always a good thing, IMO, so thanks.
We can't really "use up" matter as much as we simply change its form. We have the ingenuity to employ some forms of matter; we refer to those forms of matter as resources. As long as our ingenuity outpaces our consumption of certain forms of matter, and enables us to employ other forms of matter, we will never run out of resources. We cannot run out of matter, but we can stifle ingenuity.
We seem to be talking about different things. You're going on a lot about what is right and what is wrong, I haven't said anything about that, I have only commented on whether something is "theft". You should be aware that if you use theft in the way you have mentioned it, it may be at odds with how other people use it.
Yes, I have set up the example so that that is true, his job is so simple that it requires only training (and barely that). You seem to suggest that you would not call his job "industry" (since you require industry to include ingenuity) and at that point you should be aware that most people will be using the word industry to mean something different. Consider my updated example, let's call him Bob, who gets taught a menial way to produce clean water. This seems to be a counter example to your argument. However, it's not clear exactly where your logic breaks down, since for some reason, you're not answering my actual questions. Bob does not use ingenuity, yet he produces clean water. You have said that if you're not using ingenuity, then you're not engaged in industry, yet you say clean water is the product of industry. It seems to me Bob has produced something which you consider to be a product through a process that is neither industry, trade, charity or theft. I assume you disagree, but where exactly do you think the above logic breaks down?
I am 100% clear on that. I'd hoped that you might infer that from my statements regarding our equally important responsibility to "get away with It", as I wrote above.
I have not directly answered your questions because I disagree with the premises they are based upon; as such, I regard them a rhetorical. In response to such rhetorical questions, I either agree or disagree with the premise rather than address the implications of the premise.
Most of them are not rhetorical. I did a quick count in the thread, out of 17 questions I asked, I think three could be considered rhetorical. The other questions are mostly designed to resolve some ambiguities. There's still a lot about your argument that I don't understand, so I'm asking questions to figure out exactly what it is you mean. I think I have some disagreements with what you're saying, but since you won't answer the questions, I don't know what the disagreement is. For instance, I think when you list your four ways of obtaining stuff, "industry" seems to be a catch-all phrase for anything you don't receive from another person. However, you then provide a very specific definition of industry which does not include all production. So I create an example which highlights that difference, Bob, who obtains something (not from another person) but doesn't do it via ingenuity. It could be that my disagreement is that there are other ways of obtaining things than from other people or from industry, or it could be that my disagreement is that a industry can be performed without ingenuity. Which one it is, I'm not sure, but if you respond directly to the question about Bob, I will know which one it is. If you find a question to be based on premises you disagree with, please point out what that premise is. It might be that I can phrase the question to not include that premise, or I might present an argument for why the premise is valid, or something else. However, by ignoring it, I'm simply left in the dark.
I don't know what you mean by responsibility to get away with it. It seems to me whether I get away with something is beyond my control, and therefore not really something I can be responsible for. Please do not assume that I infer things, write out your arguments. Your posts (and frankly, any posts on the internet) are hard enough to decipher without leaving the important bits out.
Let's approach it this way. Give me an example of way by which we can acquire sufficient, clean, safe water food or shelter apart from industry, trade, charity or theft. Even hunter gatherers had to had to be industrious. Please, note above that I do address that instinct can be combined with material to produce the products needed; however, that combination is something other than industry. Industry is the combining of material with ingenuity. Human instinct is insufficient for the maintenance of the human beings. Your "Bob" is one person, in one instance. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. If Bob was alone, for a long time, without the products of others to trade for, receive in charity from or steal from for any long length of time time, Bob would need to be very industrious to survive, or live in an Eden. Perhaps we can agree on the proper term for the combining of instinct and material. Whatever tern we agree upon, we will also agree, I am confident, that said process is insufficient for the sustenance of homo-sapiens-sapiens.
Very well, but I will need to go back to the beginning. I start from the premise that the only justifiable use of force, between equals, is in defense of self-possession. By self-possession, I refer to one's ownership of them self. If one owns them self, they own the product of their industry, trade and charity. Infringements upon one's property, other than the property of others, is an unjust infringement upon self-possession and therefore can be opposed with force. Theft is an example of such. Furthermore, if one owns them self, their responsibility (ability to respond) extends from their authority over them self. Consequently, infringements upon individual liberty (one's authority over and responsibility for them self), other then the liberty of others, is an unjust infringement upon self-possession and therefore can be opposed with force. Collectivist, AKA redistributionist, schemes are an example of such; BUT, if you get caught, and lose your property and/or liberty, that defeats the whole purpose. The whole purpose is to defend your self-possession, including, but not limited to, your private property or liberty. In conclusion, our responsibility to pick and choose which laws we obey is matched only by our responsibility to get away with it.
Hm, that seems a bit arbitrary to me. If it was enough to just declare something your starting premise, you could argue for any position. Why do you start at that premise? Am I right in saying that you consider yourself to benefit from the resulting philosophy? See, you've said that several times, but I'm not sure what that means. Is owning the product of one's industry/trade/charity enough to be said to have self-possession? What kind of relationship do you need to have with something (including yourself) in order to be said to own it? Obviously, what I'm getting at is whether redistributive politics can be said to defend one's self-possession. Let's say there was a person who was paralysed from a treatable disease. It seems to me the disease has robbed the person of their self-possession, and by the logic you have presented, it would be possible to defend their self-possession through centralised healthcare. However, that doesn't seem to mesh with the traditionally libertarian view of healthcare, would you mind clearing up how you would resolve an example like that?
Ok, you acknowledge that Bob combines instinct and material to produce the products needed, and since instinct is not ingenuity, that would be my example of a way by which we can acquire safe water apart from industry, trade, charity or theft (I guess there are those who argue that taking unclaimed material is also theft, but that's usually a socialist approach, so probably not what we're talking about). You seem to say that Bob is an outlier, and exception. When I read your premise, I read "There are only four ways by which human beings can acquire the products we need to survive:1. Industry 2. Trade 3. Charity 4. Theft" (from your OP). The phrasing of that does not seem to allow for exceptions, it's not "there are lots of ways by which humans can acquire goods, the four main of them are etc.". You're right in that Bob probably can't make an entire living from this, but that's not the argument, the argument is that there exists methods which are not covered by those four. Sure, you can come up with some word. I already agree that it's not sufficient for the entire sustenance of humans, but the argument I'm contesting is not about how much can sustain a human, but whether there exists other methods of gaining products. I'm trying to make sense of how well put together this is. Did you put together these rules yourself, or have you taken them for instance from some established thinker whose methods and arguments will have been examined in any literature?
Economic realities don't apply to a single person because there is no society. Economics is an anaysis of how humans interact around wealth.
Private property and liberty extend from self-possession. Collectivist politics cannot defend self-possession. Collectivist politics can, at best, trade-off one injustice for another. Not all injustices are not between equals.
Again, your "Bob" must exist in an Eden, or a factory devoid of ingenuity. Your Bob the worker story frames a context to suite pretext to hide a subtext. The context is myopic; it cannot be conveyed to the balance of humanity. The pretext is that although Bob's job is so simple that he requires no teaching(Intellectual modification): it is so simple that Bob requires only training (behavior modification). And, the subtext is that human beings, that includes all Approx. six billion of us can only acquire the products we need to survive via industry, trade charity or theft. Quite apart from the thousands of clean water springs and low hanging fruit, adequate clean, safe water, food and shelter are the products of industry. Industry is the combining of material of material with ingenuity. We can never run out of material; however, we can stifle ingenuity. The vast majority of what is today considered a natural resource was for most of human history considered a raw material. We need to unleash the power of human ingenuity by tolerating the inequalities industry produces. Our goal should be the maximization of human well being. A lack of uniformity between equals is not an injustice. Uniformity between equals is not a noble goal.
Sure, those sound like reasonable examples. Bob could live in Eden or hang out in a factory. Since when are we talking about balancing humanity? The statement I'm commenting on is that there are only four ways to acquire goods (or however it was phrased). In order to assess that, I have suggested a process by which a good is acquired and which does not fall into the categories you presented. Whether it can be used to balance humanity seems to me to be beside the point. I'm not convinced you're using the words pretext and subtext the way I'd expect. I don't see how considering an example can give you a subtext which is at odds with that example. Going via subtexts and pretexts seems to me to be complicating the issue needlessly. It seems to me Bob is acquiring a good, yet he did not do it through theft, he did not do it through charity, he did not do it through trade and he did not do it through what you call industry, so there are more than those four ways of obtaining a product. What is it that is quote apart from springs and fruit? Finding safe water or easy fruit seems also to be examples of goods you could acquire without the four ways you have suggested (assuming that you didn't use ingenuity to find it). I don't think this has anything to do with my comment, it just seems to be a copy paste from before.
I know, you keep saying that, but you can't seem to be able to put words on whether having a genetic disease does the same. You seem to be repeating platitudes without really trying to address my comments. I'm not sure if you're trying to shift the discussion here, it seems to me there is a slight difference between what I am arguing for and collectivism, but I'm not sure if that's a distinction which is important here. Given that you haven't made it clear exactly what self-possession, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that collectivist politics cannot defend self-possession. A person who dies from a preventable disease has zero self-possession, and it seems to me that collectivist politics could for instance provide healthcare, which thus defends 100% of his self-possession. Even in trade-offs, you can make good arguments. Imagine we had an option of redistributing $100 from Bill Gates to Bob (who, let's say, is very poor). It seems to me there will have very little impact on Bill Gates, and very much impact on Bob. Yes, you can trade one injustice for another, and not all injustices are equal, so you can trade-off to get the smallest injustice possible.
Even if I were to concede every point you make above, your argument only sustains "Bob" on occasion. "Bob's" economy cannot sustain human beings, in general, over time. That requires industry, the combining of material with ingenuity. At best, "Bob" is the occasional exception that proves the rule.
