All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
14:36
A Proof of Property Rights
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
I hope that you're doing very well.
This is UPB in action.
This is a theory I've been working on for the past few years aimed at proving ethics or moral principles without reference to gods, governments, ghosts, goblins, or gremlins.
So this is Property Rights from First Principles.
This is January the 3rd, 2008, and I hope you had a wonderful New Year's and Happy New Year to you and yours.
So let's start, as good philosophy does, in my opinion, with nothing at all, with a blank, empty, white page space, and we'll see what we can build from there.
So the first question of philosophy, fundamentally, is, is consistency better than inconsistency?
Very, very important.
Because if consistency isn't better than inconsistency, we're left doing nothing but... which is not particularly helpful.
Although it can be fun.
So the only possible answer to the question is consistency better than inconsistency with regards to propositions, whether they're factual or moral or scientific.
If we put forward the proposition that inconsistency is better than consistency, then what we have to do is consistently apply a rule called inconsistency is preferable, which is a logical contradiction of the first order.
Inconsistency is then both a positive and a negative at the same time.
You must consistently apply a rule called inconsistency, which is impossible.
Therefore, consistency must be preferable to inconsistency.
This is the foundation of philosophy, of logic, of all these kinds of good things.
So how would this work in the realm of property rights?
Well, two principles really need to be established in order to create a basis for property rights.
Number one is self-ownership.
Of course, if we do not own ourselves, then it's really not possible to own anything else.
And we also have to own or be responsible for the effects of our actions.
So if we own ourselves or own thoughts, but we're not responsible for what we do, then we really can't have property rights in the material world.
So let's start playing around with this and see what we can get.
Here is the most important debating lesson you will ever hear, I humbly propose.
And if there's only one principle that you ever get from my endless verbal stream of podcasts and videos, it is this.
The principle of the argument includes the argument.
I know, it is a koan, it is Zen, but what does this mean?
Let's look at this in a bit more detail and see if we can't tease some practicality out of it.
Here's an example.
Let's say I sit down and studiously calligraph you a letter, mail it to you, and you open it and read, you are completely blind and the mail never gets delivered.
Do you see the inherent contradiction there?
You don't need to argue with me whether you're blind, you don't need to argue with me whether the mail ever gets delivered, because in my method of communication I have affirmed that you possess sight, because I'm writing, let's assume it's not braille, and that the mail gets delivered, right?
So here we have a self-contradictory statement, no worky, massive, and eternal fail.
And this is something that we're all tempted, right?
We're all sluts who put out on the first date.
Everybody wants to rush into the content of a debate, completely bypassing the form of the debating.
So we rip open this letter and we want to write back and say, well, of course the mail gets delivered, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But we don't kind of need to.
We say, look, you're assuming the mail gets delivered.
You can't argue that it doesn't if you're mailing me something.
So is someone with a straight face going to walk up to you and say, you cannot trust your senses, man.
And until Vulcan mind-melds are perfected, unfortunately though, or fortunately, all arguments rely on the validity of the census.
There's simply no way to debate without using the census and therefore to say to someone you cannot trust the census is mailing a letter saying mail never gets delivered.
So, people will say, well, mail sometimes doesn't get delivered, and that's all true, but of course you need to come up with objective definitions as to when you can or cannot trust your senses, right?
So, for instance, if, you know, when you put a stick in water, it looks like it's bent, but you run your finger down it, and it feels straight, so your sight is accurately processing the refraction of the light waves through the surface of the water, but your touch and lifting the stick out proves that it's not bent in water.
So there's ways of validating the senses.
You can't just say they're inherently flawed, because you need those senses to make your argument.
So always look for self-contradictory statements relative to the form of the argument, right?
You can't use the senses to invalidate the senses.
You can't use logic to invalidate logic.
So if someone says to you, you cannot change your mind, well, he's attempting to change your mind, right?
So forget about arguing whether you can or can't.
Just say, well, you're assuming that I can, so you can't say that I can't, right?
I mean, let's at least get that squared away.
Someone says there are no universal values.
Well, that is a universal value called a truth statement that there are no universal values And so that is immediately self-detonating and it no worky Other people will come up to you and with a straight face say there is no such thing as truth truth truth And that is a truth statement.
Is it true that there is no such thing as truth again?
You kind of get the idea forget about the content look at the form of the argument Someone says, oh, knowledge is always incomplete.
Well, is that a complete or incomplete knowledge statement?
Relative to what, right?
You can't just make that statement and have it hold logically.
You don't need any outside references or proof.
You simply look at the form of the proposition.
Everybody always and forever wants to create exceptions to their own rule, right?
So they'll say, uh, nothing is true, except for the statement that nothing is true, right?
You cannot trust your senses, except for the senses you're using to process my argument.
You cannot trust your senses.
So everybody always wants to create these exceptions to their own rules, and this is the foundation of things like gods, states, morality, problems, logical problems with morality, logical problems with epistemology, etc.
It's a rule Which then everybody creates an exception for and hopes that you won't notice and we'll start focusing on the content rather than the form So if somebody comes up to you and says nothing is certain That's a statement of certainty and if you're going to say nothing is certain Except for the statement that nothing is certain then you've just created an illogical oppositional exception, right?
Nothing is certain, except for this statement.
Well, why have you created something that is the opposite of what you're saying?
It's arbitrary, and therefore it's inconsistent, and therefore, as we started on page uno, von 1e, it's false.
So people will say, well, we need governments to resolve disputes.
But if you're debating with someone about governments, they're using reason, not force, at least I hope, right?
So they're attempting to resolve the question about whether we need governments, which is force, using reason, not force, right?
So if somebody passes a law, then they are inconsistent.
They are consistent with their proposition that governments are required, but people don't do that in debates, right?
So again, you look at the form.
First, not the content.
Don't jump in as Rand used to say, philosophizing in midstream.
So let's jump into our good old friend property rights.
So, and remembering to look at the form of the argument first, not the content.
So if someone says self-ownership is invalid, what's he really saying?
Well, he is exercising control over his own body in order to argue that it is impossible to exercise control over his own body.
Philosophically, this is called a scanner's moment, and you can google that on YouTube, scanner's head explosion, if you want to see that.
There's a nice slow motion version, which I did not decide to include.
And wear a helmet when debating with people like this, just so you can keep the brain matter in a semi-contained area.
So if someone says, someone exercises control over his body to speak or to write an argument, saying that it's impossible to exercise control over his own body, his statement is inconsistent relative to the form that he is using to create or share the argument.
So this statement is invalid.
Somebody says, ooh, property is theft.
Proudhon, I think, was the first guy to say that, although he's often misquoted.
So if a man says, well, the exercise of property rights is immoral and should never happen and so on, and he is exclusively using any property to make this argument, such as a telephone, a headset, Skype, a webcam, a computer, or, say, his very own body, You get the idea.
Self-contradiction.
Okay, so we've got self-ownership.
What about responsibility for effects?
So if I say to you, we are responsible for the effects of our actions, and you say, no way, we're certainly not responsible for the effects of our actions, and I say, I agree with you, I never said that we were.
What are you gonna say, huh?
What are you gonna say?
Well, you're gonna say, I just did say that.
Steph, you just did say that, right?
So what are you really saying there?
When you say, of course you just said that, Steph.
Well, you're affirming that I'm responsible for the effects of my body, right?
Because an argument that goes out into cyberspace or across the ether or through your browser or into your ears using sound waves or using light waves You're saying that you, Steph, are responsible for the argument that you just made.
You made the argument, it's out there, and you were the source of it, you originated it, and you own the argument.
That's why I come back to you to argue with you.
So I've used my vocal cords or my fingers or hand puppets to create an argument which I am responsible for.
You simply can't debate without assigning personal and individual responsibility for the effects of our physical self-ownership.
If I put forward an argument and then contradict myself immediately, you're going to say, dude, you just contradicted yourself relative to your earlier argument.
You own the effects of that argument.
They trace back to you, right?
So you can't debate without accepting self-ownership and ownership of the effects of our body.
So try this.
If you doubt me still, that's fine.
So let's say there's some dude in a group who explicitly denies self-ownership or responsibility for the effects of his body or his actions.
So try this.
Respond to the woman on his left as if she had made his argument, right?
So he says, there's no such thing as self-ownership.
And you turn and you say, oh, so you're saying there's no such thing as self-ownership.
Well, what's he going to do?
He's going to say, why are you responding to the woman?
I'm the one who made the argument.
You see?
Thus completely he affirms.
He is completely affirming self-ownership and self-responsibility for the effects of his actions.
It's his argument, so you should respond to him.
So again, we have self-ownership and responsibility for the effects.
You can't debate without it.
Can't possibly debate.
Somebody may think it, but you'd never know.
So, property rights, as we said earlier, rely on self-ownership and ownership for the effects of our actions.
If we do not possess self-ownership, if we are possessed by space aliens or we are not responsible for the effects of our self-ownership, we cannot debate property rights.
You can't debate, you can't comment, you can't question, you can't blog, you can't interact, you can't chat in a message board, you can't post on a board, you simply can't.
To oppose self-ownership and the ownership of the effects of our actions is to affirm them.
There's no escape from this logical circle.
So, owning effects.
Since we own ourselves and we own the effects of our actions, the essential basis for property rights is established.
I own a house that I built, because I own myself and I own the effects of my actions, which in this case is a house, just as I own my body and just as I own the arguments that I put forward for or against futilely property rights.
It is impossible to argue against property without using property, either some medium of communication or your own body.
It's like sending a letter to say that letters never get delivered.
It just doesn't work.
Or, and I know you'll be tempted, most of you out here on YouTube land or other video sites, you're going to write comments to me saying, Oh, Steph, this is false.
This is not correct.
This is not right.
But you are saying, Steph, you own this argument and I'm going to respond to you.
You own this video.
You own the effects of this video.
Therefore, I'm going to respond to you.
So you simply can't.
All right.
I know you'll be tempted, but you need to thinky before you posty.
That is of course the great challenge of internet and other kinds of communications.
So this is just a quick example of what goes on with the power of universally preferable behavior.
And the book is free, audiobook PDF.
It's a couple of bucks for the print version.
You know, order it, work through it, or just download it, listen to it.
It's available at freedomainradio.com forward slash free.
And remember, process the form of the argument.
Stop it before you respond to the content of the argument.
Focus on the form of the argument.
What is implicit in what the person is actually doing when he or she puts forward an argument to you?
Otherwise you end up jumping over the form of the argument and you end up simply getting in the quagmire of content before establishing the principles that are required to support the form of the argument.
Absolutely essential.
This, I think, is my reasonably decent contribution, that the principle of the proposition includes the proposition.
You can't put a proposition forward and exclude it from the general rule that you are proposing.
You can't say, God told me that the scientific method is valid.
I mean, you can, but you're just wrong.
Because if you say, God told me that the scientific method is universally valid, right, then you are excluding the inspiration from God from the universal preference or universal value of the scientific method.
You simply cannot create, logically create exceptions to the rules that you're proposing.
And these are very, very important in terms of the validity of the senses, in terms of basic metaphysics, in terms of if I say to you, you don't exist, then I'm debating you as if you do exist, right?
So I can't say that.
I mean, I can, but I'm just wrong.
And if I maintain it, then I'm a jerk.
So I just wanted to keep this brief.
Again, there's more in the book Universally Preferable Behavior.
It's a couple of hours.
Well, I tried to read it.
It's written, I think, metaphorically and entertainingly.
I hope that you'll enjoy it.
For more on the philosophy of personal and political liberty, please visit vonfreedomainradio.com.
You get all of the juicy philosophy stuff.
It is the greatest, largest, most powerful, and I think richest philosophy conversation in the world today and possibly ever.
So, thank you so much for watching.
As always, I look forward to your donations.
I appreciate your attention.
I wish you all the joys of philosophy, reason, empiricism, and love in 2009.
▲
Export Selection