illegal aliens

[Caid Ivik]

Well I think that there are people that actually believe in natural laws. I must admit though that it seems farfetched, but on the other hand I am extremely far from all-knowing so who am I to say that they are wrong? At the same time I do believe that there are rhetoric

[SWkwisatz]

Actually you are saying (and this forum is made for that purpose  ) they are wrong.

Haha, you

[Caid Ivik]

This "shared property" thing sounds good, but again, it isn't as shared as it tries to be. Really shared is perhaps the atmosphere. But things like healthcare, libraries or public spaces have clear terms of use, which if you don't follow, you are restricted to use them. Also, a doctor can heal only one patient in a moment; or in libraries, only one person can have a book at once. It seems like we can say we "share" a large, abstract institution (public library, space, hospital) nominally, but we cannot use the same part of them as another one is using.

[Sneakgab]

Why should we care whether something is natural or unnatural. A person should have (for example) the right to live, receive education,e.t.c because of many good reasons that have nothing to do with nature.

A natural status of something is not required to justify something nor can lack of which by itself be used to say that it is not justified.

A person cannot have naturally many rights or things he enjoys. He can only have this through ''unnatural'' changes made by man or whatever. Many of these rights are rights which I don't think anyone here would contest as being justified.

However, Caid does not seem to be in disagreement that shared property is as natural as private property (Now anyway, correct me if I'm wrong and you haven't changed your mind on this or haven't agreed from the start.)

Shared property may have rules and restriction, but by definition the only system governing anything that doesn't is anarchy. The restrictions are not particularly bad. In the case of a library book... in private ownership it may only be used once by one person. In shared ownership this is much less likely. If the ''currently being used'' state becomes likely enough, this can only be through frequency and/or duration of use. All this means is that the book is being used. This is not a fault of shared property. Regardless of whether it was private or shared it can only be used by one person. Hence, if such problems occur it is basically a sign of efficiency.

We can only see a problem where something might better be used by one person than many for some reason. But collective ownership does not preclude this. The temporarily exclusive use of the book by an individual provides an example of this.

Private property is used at the whim of one, whereas shared property is at the whim of a governing body of some sort tasked with optimum usage of the item by those who have elected it. This governing body can issue use of the item to one or many. Since there is no reason why this governing body should be generally worse than a governing individual, it seems reasonable that a body/individual following a goal generally does better in obtaining that goal than somebody not following it. That is not neccesarily always the case, but here it most probably is.

[Caid Ivik]

Not exactly, I mean a thing can be owned by only one person, although being available to many. "Available" means "as long as nobody else claims/uses it". A thing isn't a "property" as long as it isn't claimed. A truly shared book is not one in a library (which is owned by the library as institution, and you may use it if you accept its rules, which are usually imposed from one side, not by a mutual agreement or debate) but one lost in wilderness. Like all territories on land share the same planet, but they are used by different subjects. There is yet another system governing anything, namely nature, but that rules all regardless of human laws. So, you say "justified" and "restrictions are not bad"...well why we put moral categories here? The phenomenon of property or territory is much older than mankind, so I can't say in how far it needs human justification. Nature exists for itself.

[SWkwisatz]

Not exactly, I mean a thing can be owned by only one person, although being available to many. "Available" means "as long as nobody else claims/uses it". A thing isn't a "property" as long as it isn't claimed. A truly shared book is not one in a library (which is owned by the library as institution, and you may use it if you accept its rules, which are usually imposed from one side, not by a mutual agreement or debate) but one lost in wilderness.

You have every right to claim that book and borrow it at a later moment. Just because you can

[The_Sadukar]

National territories are NOT natural...

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Various pack animals have territories. So have packs of humans. The only difference is that we call our territories "states".

[Edric O]

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Various pack animals have territories. So have packs of humans. The only difference is that we call our territories "states".

No, not at all. A human nation is hundreds of times larger (often thousands of times larger) than any kind of animal pack, and our national territories are likewise gigantic by "natural" standards. There are no such things as animal packs composed of millions of individuals - not among mammals, anyway. A human tribe or village, where everyone knows each other, is like an animal pack. A nation isn't.

[Caid Ivik]

Sharing means some restrictions at times; it

[Anathema]

Naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is supposedly not natural doesn't make it wrong to do it.

For that matter, I don't think that nationalist sentiment is that different from pack mentality.

[Sneakgab]

''Naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is supposedly not natural doesn't make it wrong to do it.''

Pretty much what I was getting at earlier.

Sneakgab:''Why should we care whether something is natural or unnatural. A person should have (for example) the right to live, receive education,e.t.c because of many good reasons that have nothing to do with nature.''

Caid: ''The phenomenon of property or territory is much older than mankind, so I can't say in how far it needs human justification. Nature exists for itself.'

It is suggested here that Caid is not discussing matters of wrong or right but instead of natural or unnatural.

Otherwise... ''nature exists for itself''?

Well, isn't nature a non-sentient thing. It doesn't exist FOR anyone or anything it just simply exists. It is decisions that normally have justification not existence.

The argument now seems to be about about whether territories are natural or not.

Feel free to ignore the rest if you feel it is but nonsensical rambling:

If that is the case, then what kind of ''natural'' are we speaking about. Are we speaking about something/some state unaltered by man or other sentient-beings (assuming that man is sentient and/or that other sentient beings exist).

Or are we perhaps just speaking about instincts specifically? The former pertains to everything; an untouched mountain would be included in discussion of such ''nature'' while the latter pertains to behavior.

You could create a species or modify a previously existing one to bear instincts not put in place naturally. It might still be said though that when the creature follows those instincts that this is it's ''natural'' or ''default'' action and that only via active decision making or manipulation does it behave outside of it's natural (though artificially determined) range.

So, obviously humans often create borders, but the question is is this some default or natural behavior like eating that would be carried out unless actively decided against?

Well, even if the basis is, the system of laws and whatnot that accompanies borders obviously isn't a naturally created behavior (unless of course you think there are no beings can actually make decisions (normally most people thinking this to be the case do so due to them thinking determinism to be thecase) in which case it seems all things are natural and it could never be otherwise).

Basically, the change in borders from small and simple personal or pack territories that dealt with only a few issues to huge national borders with laws pertaining to all kinds of issues occurred in probably only a few millenia. Natural evolution simply generally cannot occur so quickly  (as far as I know). Therefore, the evolution of this behavior is artificial if it is the case that our setting up of these borders is some default, instinctive or natural behavior.

Obviously though, this behavior has not evolved on the species scale. At most it is encouraged or created in individuals through external human influence.

So, we may have a case of instincts or default behavior created artificially. More likely though, it can be said that the perpuation of borders is something actively decided upon by those in power.

Basically, it seems that borders are neither natural nor passively maintained via the natural state of the world or by passive behavior from any organims.

[Caid Ivik]

Naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is supposedly not natural doesn't make it wrong to do it.

For that matter, I don't think that nationalist sentiment is that different from pack mentality.

(+ some Sneakgab's and SWkwisatz' ideas)

Uf this is the point of whole debate: is it a fallacy or the premise? For me, "nature" means both general character of a phenomenon as well as a very wide part of the "whole" (while a naturalist would even identify the "whole" with "nature"). I don't point at the dualism of natural/artificial, because it is also questioned, whether "artificial" is subordinate to "natural" or not. We can search for causes of facts (like having borders) without need to justify them (why judge sun for dawn?), however a further action based on these facts (like changing immigrational laws) do need some justification, some reason. So much for the meta questions.

I would say ok, it seems that the question whether borders are determined by nature or not remains open for subjective opinions. We can look at it, however, also from the point what is the nature of the borders, and thus its use. The problem (dh why are we so closed, why don't we abolish the borders right now and enjoy a brave new cosmopolis) might not be in the borders and limits for immigration themselves, but rather in the attitude of natives towards immigrants within the territory, the very definition of an "immigrant" (in how far it can be distinguished from "citizenship"?), effectivity of immigrational bureaucracy, right balance between hospitality and security or wherever.

[SWkwisatz]

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Various pack animals have territories. So have packs of humans. The only difference is that we call our territories "states".

Well if by natural you mean certain things that can be classified as natural behaviour then national territories aren

[Caid Ivik]

With such a categorization what is then unnatural in human relations? With that logic are then cultural minorities natural or unnatural? Can

[SWkwisatz]

And the most coherent view would be that there is no "deviation", that everything is naturally determined. Then we wouldn't have to speak about "solutions", but only about personal attitude towards the problem. Why care for minds of the others...

Hm, I can

[Caid Ivik]

In fact I try to keep far from postmodern or relativism, although not because I have anything against it...but for sure it's not about "going for our own ideas and total ignorance of the others" (what is egocentric, but can't be authoritarian; that'd be the cynic way). This isn't where I want to go, as every solution opens new problems. You say, let's try it and see if it works; then you have a war and fun is over. Or unemployment, or overcrowding, or a so perfect society that you begin to feel useless. If the problem was only happiness and we could speak of a "solution", then it would be to detach our happiness from dependance on other solutions' successes. That's the "personal attitude" I tried to describe.

[SWkwisatz]

In fact I try to keep far from postmodern or relativism, although not because I have anything against it...but for sure it's not about "going for our own ideas and total ignorance of the others" (what is egocentric, but can't be authoritarian; that'd be the cynic way).

Personally I thin that <i>Why care for minds of the others...</i> easily can be seen as both egocentric and authoritarian, but especially as egocentric. I see egocentrism as an attitude a person can have when he/she only concentrates on his/her own thoughts and needs and ignore others. It seems you are doing exactly that in that sentence. I wouldn

[Caid Ivik]

First, to mention it again in a shorter version, what I said was to try different ways of solving problems by first deeply discussing and theorise about different ideas and thereafter try the most coherent one. That means testing very well thought of ways to work on a problem. I didn